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 October 21 2013 15:09 KwarK wrote: They're targeting moderate Republicans with broad support in primaries on single issue stuff that won't help them actually defeat Democrats when the time comes. It's just shortsighted.
Its only shortsighted if there goals were actually political. And I dont believe they are. If we assume they are rational human beings they know that the country as a whole does not stand by them. Only there crazy very minor base does. Yet they keep going down the line of alienating more and more of the population against them, therefor there goal cant be political success on a national level. It has to be local because thats the only thing they can win. So you have politicians who are worried about getting elected in there local district through hardline actions and little else.
There in it for the money and post-politics positions because no other option makes sense.
On October 21 2013 23:47 Sermokala wrote: In the new age of a media democracy a unifited party has a stronger posison then the fractionous party. regaurdless of the reality of their posisions.
Democrats are going to either just quietly control government again or fail again with "blue dog democrats".
Personaly I'll be happy we'll actualy have a party in power more then sad that the red team is loseing.
I don't know why the blue dogs are labelled a failure here. The caucus was relatively long lived and well liked by their constituents. I guess it was a failure in that they sometimes broke party lines? I guess, I don't quite know what you mean here.
They took a post george w bush presidency and lost congress in 2 years. They took obamas im going to change washington and took a giant shit all over it. They faught obamacare before it was obama care and dug the Republicans from the grave they just finished filling up in the last election.
Blue Dogs appeal to economically conservative democrats. Considering people still think that conservatives are more responsible fiscally, I don't see that contingent going away. The fact is the tea party continues to veer American politics further right wing. And its even easier considering even crazy conservatives like Colburn aren't pure enough for the tea party. So they can pretend that they are moderate in comparison to the tea party and we've veered farther right.
Well, the question would be, if they drag the democrats more to the right as well. As it looks for me, the democrats do have to make a less right-wing program for their next campaigns, since TP/Rep alienate their moderate voters, thus Dems need less bait to get them on their own side. The general idea in campaigns is usually to try to sound understanding for your opponent, if he is considered to be reasonable by the public, but separating yourself from extremists. Right now it feels, like all the Dems have to do is not to screw up in whatever way, keep calm and let the Reps run themselves in the ground. It is a bit unfortunate that we are in a difficult global financial situation, so just waiting it out and then dominating the elections is hard, but still, the Dems can assume to have a clear majority soonish, if the Reps continue like that. And then the Dems have a free reign without having to care for right-wing positions. (if that's good or bad is another topic)
On October 21 2013 03:23 corumjhaelen wrote: Thats still doesn't explain it, as my understanding is that they choose this sort of deal rather than a trial in great part for PR reasons.
I don't think you understand what's being discussed. The issue is whether or not JPM should be liable for the wrongdoings of BS or WaMu, not whether or not JPM should have gone to trial rather than taken a deal.
Edit:
On October 21 2013 03:46 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly I think a lot of the issue is moot until the banks are broken up. They don't even have to be doing stupid irresponsible things to threaten the economy if the bank is too big to fail/jail.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Solving TBTF doesn't resolve this issue or many of the other issues in the financial sector.
Yes, JP should assume liabilities of companies they acquire. By JP agreeing to pay these penalties, are they not agreeing that they are actually liable for these wrongdoings and hence are paying the fine?
Normally, yes. But as I pointed out in my other post, these acquisitions were not normal. They were done at the request of regulators in a very short time span.
The flip side of that is both BS and Wamu fell into JPM's lap. This is just them returning part of their government-earned gains back.
On October 21 2013 03:23 corumjhaelen wrote: Thats still doesn't explain it, as my understanding is that they choose this sort of deal rather than a trial in great part for PR reasons.
I don't think you understand what's being discussed. The issue is whether or not JPM should be liable for the wrongdoings of BS or WaMu, not whether or not JPM should have gone to trial rather than taken a deal.
Edit:
On October 21 2013 03:46 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly I think a lot of the issue is moot until the banks are broken up. They don't even have to be doing stupid irresponsible things to threaten the economy if the bank is too big to fail/jail.
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Solving TBTF doesn't resolve this issue or many of the other issues in the financial sector.
Yes, JP should assume liabilities of companies they acquire. By JP agreeing to pay these penalties, are they not agreeing that they are actually liable for these wrongdoings and hence are paying the fine?
Normally, yes. But as I pointed out in my other post, these acquisitions were not normal. They were done at the request of regulators in a very short time span.
Yes, but JP agreed to the acquisitions. Yes the regulators wanted it and indeed encouraged it, but they did not coerce the acquisitions. Also JP agreed to it because of the assets they gained, the price was a reflection of the risk. Any liabilities that were to be excluded in the acquisitions would have been stipulated in the purchasing contract. The fact that this became a dispute that involved the lawyers would indicate that the liabilities in question were not stipulated in the contracts and so legal advise was consulted.
Now a settlement has been reached after negotiations, it appears that JP are agreeing that they are indeed liable for the charges and are paying a penalty for the agreed sums. The details of the settlement have not actually been finalised or made public yet, so the above is slightly speculative.
JP knew they were buying companies in dire straits, this is why they picked them up for a fraction of their true value. They saw an opportunity and took it. The risk of the purchases was reflected in the price. The JP Board themselves seem very happy with Dimon's actions in making these acquisitions for the prices paid, the costs incurred and the penalties that have been levied. JP shareholders have also endorsed Dimon since 2008, so if he had acted contrary to their benefit (long-term) in 2008 they would have got rid of him. Obviously they may change their mind in the future in view of this further short-term hit but we will have to see.
JP seem to be complaining that they are being penalised despite the fact that they made these purchases at the urging of the Treasury. They seem to feel that their penalty should be mitigated and reduced because of this. I doubt that there was an agreement that this purchase would negate any further prosecution for their own financial crimes and misdemeanors or result in leniency in any of their own wrongdoings.
Investment banks operate for their own financial benefits and the purchases of WaMu and Bears were done in line with this policy. The fact that this benefited the Treasury and the markets at the time is secondary to that motivation.
A couple things.
We don't know if the deal was coercive or not. We know that regulators wanted the deal to happen and that there wasn't anyone lining up to buy BS. Whether regulators used a carrot, a stick, or both to get JPM to take the deal is unknown. We do know that it was an unusual purchase and that it needed government intervention of some kind to get done. We also know that later government action towards JPM (TARP) was coercive, so the idea that the government was coercive towards JPM here isn't implausible.
We don't know if JPM bought BS "for a fraction of their true value." It's entirely plausible that BS, a company on its way to die, was worth less than zero. Do you have a source that JPM bought BS at an exceptional price?
Not only is JPM not getting a break on the fines, they seem to be getting hit with higher fines than their peers.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ordered his administration to withdraw its appeal of a New Jersey Supreme court ruling allowing gay couples to get married.
The New Jersey high court on Friday refused a request by the Christie administration to delay a ruling by a judge that allowed same-sex couples to get married in New Jersey. After the ruling the Christie administration said it would appeal the decision.
Couples in New Jersey began getting married early Monday within minutes of New Jersey, becoming the 13th state (plus the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage.
Sen.-elect Cory Booker (D-N.J.) officiated some of the marriages.
Christie ordered acting Attorney General John Hoffman (R) to withdraw the Christie administration's appeal of the case, Garden State Equality vs. Paula Dow, on Monday morning.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ordered his administration to withdraw its appeal of a New Jersey Supreme court ruling allowing gay couples to get married.
The New Jersey high court on Friday refused a request by the Christie administration to delay a ruling by a judge that allowed same-sex couples to get married in New Jersey. After the ruling the Christie administration said it would appeal the decision.
Couples in New Jersey began getting married early Monday within minutes of New Jersey, becoming the 13th state (plus the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage.
Sen.-elect Cory Booker (D-N.J.) officiated some of the marriages.
Christie ordered acting Attorney General John Hoffman (R) to withdraw the Christie administration's appeal of the case, Garden State Equality vs. Paula Dow, on Monday morning.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) doesn't want another government shutdown, but Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is already egging on the next one. A power battle brewing between the two senators is growing personal ahead of the next critical deadline.
Federal government funding expires again on Jan. 15 and the two influential senators are already on a collision course after Cruz's quixotic push to defund Obamacare fell flat in the recent budget debacle and badly damaged the GOP's standing before the party surrendered.
"There will not be another government shutdown," McConnell said Sunday. "You can count on that."
Cruz, by contrast, isn't the least bit chastened after systematically undermining GOP leaders and goading his party into a self-defeating predicament. In fact, he wants a do-over.
"I would do anything, and I will continue to do anything I can to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare," said the freshman senator, when asked if he'd risk another shutdown. "What I intend to do is continue standing with the American people to work to stop Obamacare."
McConnell had publicly punted on the party's recent Obamacare defunding gambit and refused to intervene until the government shutdown was well under way and a debt default was nearing. Now he's publicly making the case and sending a new message: if you want to repeal Obamacare, elect Republicans to the Senate and White House.
"We have a math problem in the Senate in getting rid of Obamacare," he said. "It's the following math problem: 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. We only control a portion of the government, and so that limits our ability to get rid of this horrible law."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ordered his administration to withdraw its appeal of a New Jersey Supreme court ruling allowing gay couples to get married.
The New Jersey high court on Friday refused a request by the Christie administration to delay a ruling by a judge that allowed same-sex couples to get married in New Jersey. After the ruling the Christie administration said it would appeal the decision.
Couples in New Jersey began getting married early Monday within minutes of New Jersey, becoming the 13th state (plus the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage.
Sen.-elect Cory Booker (D-N.J.) officiated some of the marriages.
Christie ordered acting Attorney General John Hoffman (R) to withdraw the Christie administration's appeal of the case, Garden State Equality vs. Paula Dow, on Monday morning.
On October 21 2013 13:40 Danglars wrote: Cruz and the Tea Party's position on Obamacare is as popular as ever amongst the Republican electorate. It's kind of funny hearing from the left within their echo chamber wondering why there continues to be opposition and why the opposition won't just bend over. There was not a chance that anyone but moderates would emerge feeling chastened. The cause continues, and the pressure is still to replace unreliable big-government type Republicans with limited-government conservatives. The eventual goal is replacement of Boehner and McConnell to give leadership slots to principled leaders.
Civil war in a FPTP electoral system is not going to bring them any power. You can't attack your own party for not having as much of a hardline on your single issue as you do, the party doesn't work like that. It's a coalition, it has to be for it to gain enough support to have a meaningful chance in a FPTP system. People who care about ending Obamacare do not make up a majority of the population, you need to take that crowd and ally it with the social conservatives, religious right, libertarians and the rest and try and get votes that way. Their attempts to ideologically purify the Republican party will only dismember it, they don't seem to understand that they actually need the people whose views they disagree with.
The Republican party has an identity crisis, and we shall see how much of the same core views are held in the Republican coalition. Why did things come to a head in the first place? Republican politicians talked conservative to get elected, ran on overturning Obamacare in 2010, and then weaseled their way out of fighting it with the power they had. You see some kind of ideological battle, I see democracy in action. Moderates ceased representing their voters and are battling to stay in power. In the general scheme of things, this is a fight on views, and the politicians that are just talk without any action will struggle to survive as time goes on. They reneged on campaign promises, showed their true colors, and are now being contested. Contrasted with Obamacare's ideology, that isn't really all that ideological.
It's still a fight of views, not some minority action. Cruz's case has teeth and that's exactly what the mainstream is trying to calm down. They've been trying to get rid of the Tea Party for some time now and label them extremists to stop their support. It hasn't happened yet. At it's core, the pragmatic wing -- that will surrender every issue just to get along and call it consensus -- is fading. The public has seen just how far they're willing to budge.
I mean, come on now. Cruz was the spokesman for the Republican party for the shutdown and STILL retains his poll numbers amongst Republicans. Any observer without deep-set views on who makes up the Republican base can look at that and observe how much that stand is supported by conservative Republicans big on social views, libertarians, and those Republicans less concerned about the fiscal news. I'd expect his numbers to tank immediately after had he really been so divisive, had his stand been in the minority. It's not that there's a lack of journalists giving their views on Boehner's troubles and the Cruz/McConnell divide.
As anger toward the Republican Party grows, a majority of Americans say a GOP-controlled House is bad for the country and want Speaker John Boehner replaced, according to a new poll out Monday. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed say it is a bad thing that Republicans control the House, up 11 percentage points since December 2012, while 38 percent say it is a good thing, the CNN/ORC poll shows. This is the first time a majority is unhappy with the GOP controlling the House since the party gained control of the chamber in the 2010 midterm elections.
Sixty-three percent of respondents also say Boehner should go, a view expressed by nearly half of those within his own party. Only 30 percent support his leadership, the poll showed.
On October 21 2013 13:40 Danglars wrote: Cruz and the Tea Party's position on Obamacare is as popular as ever amongst the Republican electorate. It's kind of funny hearing from the left within their echo chamber wondering why there continues to be opposition and why the opposition won't just bend over. There was not a chance that anyone but moderates would emerge feeling chastened. The cause continues, and the pressure is still to replace unreliable big-government type Republicans with limited-government conservatives. The eventual goal is replacement of Boehner and McConnell to give leadership slots to principled leaders.
Civil war in a FPTP electoral system is not going to bring them any power. You can't attack your own party for not having as much of a hardline on your single issue as you do, the party doesn't work like that. It's a coalition, it has to be for it to gain enough support to have a meaningful chance in a FPTP system. People who care about ending Obamacare do not make up a majority of the population, you need to take that crowd and ally it with the social conservatives, religious right, libertarians and the rest and try and get votes that way. Their attempts to ideologically purify the Republican party will only dismember it, they don't seem to understand that they actually need the people whose views they disagree with.
The Republican party has an identity crisis, and we shall see how much of the same core views are held in the Republican coalition. Why did things come to a head in the first place? Republican politicians talked conservative to get elected, ran on overturning Obamacare in 2010, and then weaseled their way out of fighting it with the power they had. You see some kind of ideological battle, I see democracy in action. Moderates ceased representing their voters and are battling to stay in power. In the general scheme of things, this is a fight on views, and the politicians that are just talk without any action will struggle to survive as time goes on. They reneged on campaign promises, showed their true colors, and are now being contested. Contrasted with Obamacare's ideology, that isn't really all that ideological.
It's still a fight of views, not some minority action. Cruz's case has teeth and that's exactly what the mainstream is trying to calm down. They've been trying to get rid of the Tea Party for some time now and label them extremists to stop their support. It hasn't happened yet. At it's core, the pragmatic wing -- that will surrender every issue just to get along and call it consensus -- is fading. The public has seen just how far they're willing to budge.
I mean, come on now. Cruz was the spokesman for the Republican party for the shutdown and STILL retains his poll numbers amongst Republicans. Any observer without deep-set views on who makes up the Republican base can look at that and observe how much that stand is supported by conservative Republicans big on social views, libertarians, and those Republicans less concerned about the fiscal news. I'd expect his numbers to tank immediately after had he really been so divisive, had his stand been in the minority. It's not that there's a lack of journalists giving their views on Boehner's troubles and the Cruz/McConnell divide.
The polls I've looked at indicate Cruz lost support among non-Republicans (including independents), and non-Tea Party Republicans. He gained among Tea Party Republicans, which clearly represent a minority of voters. Cruz's strategy appears to be to send all moderates and independents into the open arms of Democrats in return for adoration from the most conservative people in the country.
On October 21 2013 13:40 Danglars wrote: Cruz and the Tea Party's position on Obamacare is as popular as ever amongst the Republican electorate. It's kind of funny hearing from the left within their echo chamber wondering why there continues to be opposition and why the opposition won't just bend over. There was not a chance that anyone but moderates would emerge feeling chastened. The cause continues, and the pressure is still to replace unreliable big-government type Republicans with limited-government conservatives. The eventual goal is replacement of Boehner and McConnell to give leadership slots to principled leaders.
Civil war in a FPTP electoral system is not going to bring them any power. You can't attack your own party for not having as much of a hardline on your single issue as you do, the party doesn't work like that. It's a coalition, it has to be for it to gain enough support to have a meaningful chance in a FPTP system. People who care about ending Obamacare do not make up a majority of the population, you need to take that crowd and ally it with the social conservatives, religious right, libertarians and the rest and try and get votes that way. Their attempts to ideologically purify the Republican party will only dismember it, they don't seem to understand that they actually need the people whose views they disagree with.
The Republican party has an identity crisis, and we shall see how much of the same core views are held in the Republican coalition. Why did things come to a head in the first place? Republican politicians talked conservative to get elected, ran on overturning Obamacare in 2010, and then weaseled their way out of fighting it with the power they had. You see some kind of ideological battle, I see democracy in action. Moderates ceased representing their voters and are battling to stay in power. In the general scheme of things, this is a fight on views, and the politicians that are just talk without any action will struggle to survive as time goes on. They reneged on campaign promises, showed their true colors, and are now being contested. Contrasted with Obamacare's ideology, that isn't really all that ideological.
It's still a fight of views, not some minority action. Cruz's case has teeth and that's exactly what the mainstream is trying to calm down. They've been trying to get rid of the Tea Party for some time now and label them extremists to stop their support. It hasn't happened yet. At it's core, the pragmatic wing -- that will surrender every issue just to get along and call it consensus -- is fading. The public has seen just how far they're willing to budge.
I mean, come on now. Cruz was the spokesman for the Republican party for the shutdown and STILL retains his poll numbers amongst Republicans. Any observer without deep-set views on who makes up the Republican base can look at that and observe how much that stand is supported by conservative Republicans big on social views, libertarians, and those Republicans less concerned about the fiscal news. I'd expect his numbers to tank immediately after had he really been so divisive, had his stand been in the minority. It's not that there's a lack of journalists giving their views on Boehner's troubles and the Cruz/McConnell divide.
The polls I've looked at indicate Cruz lost support among non-Republicans (including independents), and non-Tea Party Republicans. He gained among Tea Party Republicans, which clearly represent a minority of voters. Cruz's strategy appears to be to send all moderates and independents into the open arms of Democrats in return for adoration from the most conservative people in the country.
One people, one party, one Cruz. Tea Party Freedom Train 2016!
re: danglars as opposed to the conservatives who talked about overturning obamacare when they knew they couldn't? And merely exploited that to get elected, rather than seriously try to do something about obamacare? It's not like cruz is actually standing for anything other than his own career (to be expected of much politicians of course).
Saying pragmatists surrender everything to get elected is just plain a lie, and it completely ignores what pragmatism is. If you have a justification for why the tea party is actually being constructive rather than destructive to the nation, I'd be interested in that; otherwise it just looks like idiocy (of which there's a lot on both sides). Historically speaking, too much ideology is a bad thing, it tends to interfere with getting stuff done.
On October 21 2013 13:40 Danglars wrote: Cruz and the Tea Party's position on Obamacare is as popular as ever amongst the Republican electorate. It's kind of funny hearing from the left within their echo chamber wondering why there continues to be opposition and why the opposition won't just bend over. There was not a chance that anyone but moderates would emerge feeling chastened. The cause continues, and the pressure is still to replace unreliable big-government type Republicans with limited-government conservatives. The eventual goal is replacement of Boehner and McConnell to give leadership slots to principled leaders.
Civil war in a FPTP electoral system is not going to bring them any power. You can't attack your own party for not having as much of a hardline on your single issue as you do, the party doesn't work like that. It's a coalition, it has to be for it to gain enough support to have a meaningful chance in a FPTP system. People who care about ending Obamacare do not make up a majority of the population, you need to take that crowd and ally it with the social conservatives, religious right, libertarians and the rest and try and get votes that way. Their attempts to ideologically purify the Republican party will only dismember it, they don't seem to understand that they actually need the people whose views they disagree with.
The Republican party has an identity crisis, and we shall see how much of the same core views are held in the Republican coalition. Why did things come to a head in the first place? Republican politicians talked conservative to get elected, ran on overturning Obamacare in 2010, and then weaseled their way out of fighting it with the power they had. You see some kind of ideological battle, I see democracy in action. Moderates ceased representing their voters and are battling to stay in power. In the general scheme of things, this is a fight on views, and the politicians that are just talk without any action will struggle to survive as time goes on. They reneged on campaign promises, showed their true colors, and are now being contested. Contrasted with Obamacare's ideology, that isn't really all that ideological.
It's still a fight of views, not some minority action. Cruz's case has teeth and that's exactly what the mainstream is trying to calm down. They've been trying to get rid of the Tea Party for some time now and label them extremists to stop their support. It hasn't happened yet. At it's core, the pragmatic wing -- that will surrender every issue just to get along and call it consensus -- is fading. The public has seen just how far they're willing to budge.
I mean, come on now. Cruz was the spokesman for the Republican party for the shutdown and STILL retains his poll numbers amongst Republicans. Any observer without deep-set views on who makes up the Republican base can look at that and observe how much that stand is supported by conservative Republicans big on social views, libertarians, and those Republicans less concerned about the fiscal news. I'd expect his numbers to tank immediately after had he really been so divisive, had his stand been in the minority. It's not that there's a lack of journalists giving their views on Boehner's troubles and the Cruz/McConnell divide.
This isn't a fight about identity, in fact most Republicans agree on their core beliefs and the goals they have in mind. This is a battle about strategy, about what obstructionism can achieve and how tenacious the GOP should be about fighting for its goals. Moderates don't have the appetite for long wars of attrition, which upsets the Tea Party. The Tea Party painted the Republicans into a corner in the last budget fight by making anything less than total victory a loss, which upset moderates and old hands who think that's bad and naive politics.
As for Cruz, he's done a lot of publicity stunts without much substantive results, but I think many people are tolerant of it because they know he's positioning himself for a 2016 presidential run. Cruz is painting himself as a guy who can stand up to Congress/Democrats and who's willing to dig in and do the dirty work. He's also clearly building a coalition within the GOP for that run.
EPT
