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.
On April 17 2016 07:04 oneofthem wrote: it would then be easy to come up wiht specific instances of corrupt actions
Well, this is the textbook example.
People talk so much about Hillary Clinton 'knowing' what to do regarding Wall Street. Can you provide sources for her knowing how to break up the big banks, etc. that show a more sophisticated understanding than Sanders has, for example, in his NYDN interview?
For the record, Clinton responded to the comments made in the video, basically saying that the reason she ended up supporting a later version of the bill was because it protected alimony and child support payments:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to that charge [that you flip flopped on supporting the bill because of donations]?
CLINTON: Well, I'm glad you asked me about it, because this is one of these, you know, innuendo insinuation charges that the Sanders campaign is engaging in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that was Senator Warren, though.
CLINTON: If you -- no, but -- but I know. But if you had played the entire quote, you know, what you would have heard her say, she and I worked together in 2000 to stop a bankruptcy bill that we both believed was very harmful.
When I got to the Senate in 2001, one of the first big votes there was on a version of the bankruptcy bill and I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current -- that bill was making it a very low priority.
So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever -- and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply...
Take or leave her explanation, but the situation wasn't as cut and dry as Warren portrays in the interview.
Here is what Hillary said about breaking up banks in the New York Daily News Interview:
Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?
Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.
There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.
So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.
Sanders has his strong points, but I don't think anyone can compare the above to Sanders's answer and not conclude that Clinton's grasp of financial regulation policy is far superior to his.
Well, Sanders' ideas seem borderline delusional to me. His health care plan is too expensive and will probably kill the middle class... I'm not saying Hillary is the better choice....just...that it won't make a difference. This system will continue to fuck over the little guys, so I'll just be sittin on the dock of the bay watching the tide roll away..
I hope it is either Sally Ride, or Eleanor Roosevelt.
Lew announced last summer that he was considering redesigning the $10 bill to include the portrait of a woman. The decision to make the historic change at the expense of Hamilton drew angry rebukes from fans of the former Treasury Secretary. The pro-Hamilton movement gained steam after the smash success of the hip-hop Broadway musical about his life this year.
Those pressures led Lew to determine that Hamilton should remain on the front of the bill. Instead, a mural-style depiction of the women's suffrage movement -- including images of leaders such as Susan B. Anthony -- will be featured on the back of the bill.
A Treasury spokesman declined to comment on the pending changes. But Lew hinted that a decision could come this week.
"When we started this conversation not quite a year ago, it wasn't clear to me that millions of Americans were going to weigh in with their ideas," he told CNBC. "We're not just talking about one bill. We're talking about the $5, the $10, and the $20. We're not just talking about one picture on one bill. We're talking about using the front and the back of the bill to tell an exciting set of stories."
Along those lines, Lew also plans to announce this week that Andrew Jackson -- a less beloved former president whose face graces the front of the $20 bill -- will be removed in favor of a female representing the struggle for racial equality, according to the government source.
That decision would place a female on one of the most widely circulated bills in the world. But the historic change placing a female on the front of the $20 note won't come for more than a decade, the source said, since the process for changing the design of that note is still in the early stages.
People talk so much about Hillary Clinton 'knowing' what to do regarding Wall Street. Can you provide sources for her knowing how to break up the big banks, etc. that show a more sophisticated understanding than Sanders has, for example, in his NYDN interview?
For the record, Clinton responded to the comments made in the video, basically saying that the reason she ended up supporting a later version of the bill was because it protected alimony and child support payments:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to that charge [that you flip flopped on supporting the bill because of donations]?
CLINTON: Well, I'm glad you asked me about it, because this is one of these, you know, innuendo insinuation charges that the Sanders campaign is engaging in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that was Senator Warren, though.
CLINTON: If you -- no, but -- but I know. But if you had played the entire quote, you know, what you would have heard her say, she and I worked together in 2000 to stop a bankruptcy bill that we both believed was very harmful.
When I got to the Senate in 2001, one of the first big votes there was on a version of the bankruptcy bill and I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current -- that bill was making it a very low priority.
So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever -- and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply...
Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?
Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.
There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.
So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.
Sanders has his strong points, but I don't think anyone can compare the above to Sanders's answer and not conclude that Clinton's grasp of financial regulation policy is far superior to his.
I can't help but notice she conveniently leaves homeowners out of that response?
On April 17 2016 09:24 ragz_gt wrote: Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d.
There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem.
This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument.
That's not what I'm saying at all. OP said that it can't be a bad thing but there are negatives associated to it. I'm not saying there ain't good reasons to break them, which there are a lot of, I'm just saying there are other factors to consider and we shouldn't just go "big = evil, let's fuck them up" without consider all implications.
People talk so much about Hillary Clinton 'knowing' what to do regarding Wall Street. Can you provide sources for her knowing how to break up the big banks, etc. that show a more sophisticated understanding than Sanders has, for example, in his NYDN interview?
For the record, Clinton responded to the comments made in the video, basically saying that the reason she ended up supporting a later version of the bill was because it protected alimony and child support payments:
STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you respond to that charge [that you flip flopped on supporting the bill because of donations]?
CLINTON: Well, I'm glad you asked me about it, because this is one of these, you know, innuendo insinuation charges that the Sanders campaign is engaging in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that was Senator Warren, though.
CLINTON: If you -- no, but -- but I know. But if you had played the entire quote, you know, what you would have heard her say, she and I worked together in 2000 to stop a bankruptcy bill that we both believed was very harmful.
When I got to the Senate in 2001, one of the first big votes there was on a version of the bankruptcy bill and I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current -- that bill was making it a very low priority.
So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever -- and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply...
Take or leave her explanation, but the situation wasn't as cut and dry as Warren portrays in the interview.
Here is what Hillary said about breaking up banks in the New York Daily News Interview:
Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?
Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.
There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.
So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.
Sanders has his strong points, but I don't think anyone can compare the above to Sanders's answer and not conclude that Clinton's grasp of financial regulation policy is far superior to his.
I can't help but notice she conveniently leaves homeowners out of that response?
Yes, because using an edited video without context is proof that Hillary blames homeowners. You might have really good points, but using shady "evidence" does not help your course. It makes it really hard to take it seriously.
It's the same shit as first part, unless you live in Lord of the Ring world, in order to make good decision you need take all sides, pros and cons into consideration. Clinton has consistently shown to be able to do that, even when I don't agree with her decision, but it seems to be a concept that a lot of Americans are not familiar with.
There are market mechanisms to deal with poor homeowners already. They thankfully already lost their homes and credit is destroyed so they no longer pose a systemic threat.
The most significant moment of the Democratic primary debate in Brooklyn—and perhaps any presidential debate this season—came when Bernie Sanders challenged Hillary Clinton over her refusal to criticize Israel’s excessive use of force against the Palestinians in Gaza. For the first time in memory, a major American political figure insisted publicly that the Jewish state and its leaders are “not always right”—and that in attempting to suppress terrorism, they had killed and injured far too many blameless human beings.
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer about his judgment that Israel’s military response to attacks from Gaza in 2014 was “disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life,” the Vermont Senator answered firmly: “Yeah, I do believe that.” He mentioned that many other nations, including longtime allies of Israel, had denounced the atrocities in Gaza, along with human rights organizations around the world.
Having reiterated that he supports Israel as our ally—with every right to self-defense—Sanders said that “in the long run, if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.”
That should be blindingly obvious, especially to Clinton, who has worked alongside President Clinton and President Obama toward a decent two-state solution for almost a quarter century. Her disappointing reply to Sanders reflected her political priorities in the New York primary, rather than her commitment to human rights or her assessment of American diplomatic interests.
She talked about her effort in negotiating a Gaza ceasefire, but that self-serving paean was evasive, as Sanders pointed out. Pressed for a serious answer, she pandered to the most conservative voters, Jewish and Christian, who mistakenly believe friendship with Israel means supporting any violence perpetrated by Israel’s government. She blamed the casualties among Palestinian civilians solely on Hamas, even as she vaguely mentioned “precautions” that Israel should have taken to prevent them.
This display of subservience to the most right-wing elements in Israel and its Washington lobby was all too typical of American presidential aspirants. Rarely does any U.S. politician dare to utter the truth about the conflict in Israel and Palestine. But coming from Clinton the usual pap sounds worse because, unlike the average pol, she possesses deep knowledge of the region.
lol just lol i think bernie genuinely doesn't understand why it is politically dumb to criticize israel vs palestinians at this time. it's not even a bitchass political move designed to rile up the left, he just doesn't understand.
On April 17 2016 09:24 ragz_gt wrote: Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d.
There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem.
This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument.
That's not what I'm saying at all. OP said that it can't be a bad thing but there are negatives associated to it. I'm not saying there ain't good reasons to break them, which there are a lot of, I'm just saying there are other factors to consider and we shouldn't just go "big = evil, let's fuck them up" without consider all implications.
So why don't you think my answer applies? I'm saying you should only consider being competitive as an argument that holds weight if there are no overwhelming negatives associated to what allows you to stay competitive. So the discussion should revolve around whether or not it's true that the banks as they are now pose a threat to society or not, which in my view would be an overwhelming negative. Unless your argument is that it's worth it for society to take this risk to allow the banks to stay number one, but I doubt that's what you're saying.
On April 17 2016 09:24 ragz_gt wrote: Not saying if the statement is true or not, but "YEAH WELL BERNIE SUCKS MORE" is a perfectly valid argument when it's choosing one of them
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: Breaking up companies so big that their, purely profit driven, fuckups could treaten whole countries can't be a bad thing.
You can argue how but if you argue anything more your just waiting for m.a.d.
There are legit reasons why big bank can be beneficial. It gives them the leverage to compete internationally. Unless US can also break up Deutsche bank, HSBC, or any of the big bank in China (all which are bigger than any US bank), it is a problem.
This argument doesn't stand on its own. If someone tells you that banks that are too big to fail cause a danger to society, you can't just say that it allows them to be competitive. That's like saying that doping products are fine because it allows athletes to be competitive. You recognize that the argument in this analogy is fallacious because it's acknowledged that doping is a problem in sports. In the same way, unless you demonstrate that these banks aren't too big to fail (or that being too big to fail isn't a problem), in other words unless you address the argument that is made, then being competitive doesn't hold weight as an argument.
That's not what I'm saying at all. OP said that it can't be a bad thing but there are negatives associated to it. I'm not saying there ain't good reasons to break them, which there are a lot of, I'm just saying there are other factors to consider and we shouldn't just go "big = evil, let's fuck them up" without consider all implications.
So why don't you think my answer applies? I'm saying you should only consider being competitive as an argument that holds weight if there are no overwhelming negatives associated to what allows you to stay competitive. So the discussion should revolve around whether or not it's true that the banks as they are now pose a threat to society or not, which in my view would be an overwhelming negative. Unless your argument is that it's worth it for society to take this risk to allow the banks to stay number one, but I doubt that's what you're saying.
You are just not getting it are you.... I'm NOT saying that it's bad to break up banks. I'm NOT saying there aren't a lot of negatives to big banks. I'm NOT saying that the negatives are less than positives. All I'm saying is that positives do exist and we shouldn't just ignore them altogether.
On April 17 2016 07:27 Velr wrote: This argument doesn't stand on its own.
I'm not even making an argument here (unless that positives do exist itself is an argument, then I have no comment) so I don't know what is standing on what.
Bernie had nothing to gain by defending Palestinians so strongly. It's amazing he's made it this far with such tactical...I don't wanna call them errors, since I don't think they are. Strategical negligence is perhaps more appropriate.
On April 17 2016 11:24 ragz_gt wrote: I respect Bernie for talking about Israel issue seriously, rather than standard "we support Israel, gives no fuck about anyone else".
Me too. He's not making this campaign easy on himself, though. For my ignorant self, how important is this issue to New York? I feel like I'm missing the breadth of what a bad idea it was.
Do they actually though. I've yet to see any evidence that it comes anywhere near the importance of social / economic policy, Though him being Jewish kind of make it unpredictable. If meaningful portion of Jewish population view it as "treacherous", which is a much stronger negative feeling than the issue itself, it can compound the problem for him.
On April 17 2016 11:42 oneofthem wrote: anyway it is very distorting to portray bernie as the only one who recognizes problem with the current israeli direction.
I hope most people who put serious thought on it realize it is an issue, but Bernie is kind of the only person to talk about it. Talking is the first step to finally have some serious discussion about it, much less answers.
On April 17 2016 10:24 thePunGun wrote: Well, Sanders' ideas seem borderline delusional to me. His health care plan is too expensive and will probably kill the middle class... I'm not saying Hillary is the better choice....just...that it won't make a difference. This system will continue to fuck over the little guys, so I'll just be sittin on the dock of the bay watching the tide roll away..
His plans require us going from ~20% GDP Federal Tax take to ~30%. Somehow he gets a pass on this nonsense. The media never asks "which legislators will vote on this?" and "have you told the middle class how much their taxes need to go up to support a Nordic social democracy?" Historically, we have only ever been at 20% GDP during WWII, and we are at 19% right now thanks to ACA and expiry of Bush Tax cuts. Bernie's plans require a complete revolution in tax take that he has thus far not be questioned on.
EDIT: there are nothing borderline about Bernie and Berner delusions. I have been told by my FB friends that Bernie will "work with Republicans" and make the revolution happen with Republican votes. That is pure madness. There are zero Republican votes for even a single dollar in tax increases. Every Republican primary candidate is running on a minimum 5% GDP tax cut.
On April 17 2016 11:50 ragz_gt wrote: Do they actually though. I've yet to see any evidence that it comes anywhere near the importance of social / economic policy, Though him being Jewish kind of make it unpredictable. If meaningful portion of Jewish population view it as "treacherous", which is a much stronger negative feeling than the issue itself, it can compound the problem for him.
On April 17 2016 11:42 oneofthem wrote: anyway it is very distorting to portray bernie as the only one who recognizes problem with the current israeli direction.
I hope most people who put serious thought on it realize it is an issue, but Bernie is kind of the only person to talk about it. Talking is the first step to finally have some serious discussion about it, much less answers.
yea they do. young jewish people may not care or vote for sanders on this issue but he's all but dead to the rest, about 15% of the primary vote. there's also a big and fast growing (read, breeding) hasidic population.
On April 17 2016 11:50 ragz_gt wrote: Do they actually though. I've yet to see any evidence that it comes anywhere near the importance of social / economic policy, Though him being Jewish kind of make it unpredictable. If meaningful portion of Jewish population view it as "treacherous", which is a much stronger negative feeling than the issue itself, it can compound the problem for him.
Yes, they very much do. Of the ones I know, I can say that a substantial portion (more than 80%) of ex-Soviet Jews vote primarily on Israel, with all other concerns being secondary.
EPT
