US Politics Mega-thread - Page 10029

On March 07 2018 11:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
The settlement agreement thing is dumb, tbh. It looks like a case of her signing then Trump & Cohen neglecting to countersign or return a countersigned document to her. She also took the settlement money, so it's kind of ridiculous to argue that the contract wasn't valid or in force.

On March 07 2018 11:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't like to channel Danglars, but you could look at the actual substance of the legislation vs. saying it's bad cuz Republicans.

legislation sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID)

On March 07 2018 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


Just start with the premise that Republicans had an idea to deregulate banks and you think it might not be a bad idea.

Really let that one stir around for a while.

Then ask why in the world this was passed with 0 public pressure for it. No real fight between two groups that are supposed to be at each others throats, and it just so happens to help their corporate donors.

If all of that doesn't make you hesitate (how the fuck not!?), ask yourself what Democrats got out of it, and why Republicans gave it up.

On March 07 2018 11:31 Plansix wrote:

Maybe you should just read first, like the rest of us did.

The provision of the bill that has garnered the most attention is one that would raise the threshold at which banks are subject to certain federal oversight, including stress tests that measure a bank’s ability to withstand an economic downturn. Under current law, banks with assets of $50 billion or more are considered systematically important financial institutions (often referred to as SIFIs) and are therefore subject to stricter oversight from the Federal Reserve.

The Senate bill would increase the SIFI threshold to $250 billion. Banks with assets of less than $100 billion would be freed of current oversight requirements, and those between $100 billion and $250 billion would no longer be subject to tougher rules after 18 months,

West Virginia lawmakers unanimously approved 5% pay raises for teachers and troopers on Tuesday, after the state’s governor reached a deal to end a teacher walkout that shut the state’s schools for nine days.

A huge group of teachers crowding the capitol’s hallways cheered their victory.

With striking teachers looking on, the house of delegates passed the pay raise for teachers, school service personnel and state troopers on a 99-0 vote, and the senate followed, voting 34-0.

“I believe in you and I love our kids,” the governor, Jim Justice, said.

The governor, union leaders and the house had agreed to the raise for those groups last week. State teachers are among the lowest paid in the country and haven’t had a salary increase in four years.

On March 07 2018 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Unless their local state banks and voters want the deregulation on their local banks. These senators represent their states, not the party.

On March 07 2018 11:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Strength in numbers.



Source

On March 07 2018 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Unless their local state banks and voters want the deregulation on their local banks. These senators represent their states, not the party.

On March 07 2018 11:47 Nebuchad wrote:


Isn't that the one where Heitkamp has 1M invested in two of the main beneficiaries of the bill?

But yeah, probably following the will of her people. North Dakotans are really into bank deregulation, that's what I hear anyway.

On March 07 2018 11:51 Plansix wrote:

The smaller banks have been asking for this for like 8 years now. They don’t feel they should be lumped in with dumpster fires like Wells Fargo and BOA. If this undercuts the efforts to totally repeal Dodd Frank, I’ll eat it.

On March 07 2018 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote:


So Democrats voted for this, because the alternative would have passed without their support? So you think Republicans purposely undercut themselves to give Democrats a win. That's really what you think happened?

On March 07 2018 11:58 Plansix wrote:

No, it just doesn’t pass. They need 60 votes in the senate.

On March 07 2018 12:05 GreenHorizons wrote:


Okay, so don't pass a giveaway Republican orchestrated bank deregulation.

Seems pretty simple. I don't remember seeing people taking to the streets over wanting less 'small' bank regulations, but maybe I missed it?

On March 07 2018 12:09 Plansix wrote:

It’s a small number of moderate democrats and this has been a thing for them for like 8 years. You can try to primary them if you think it’s that huge of a deal.

On March 07 2018 12:15 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not that small of a group, they needed 9-10 just to break the filibuster. They ended up with 16-17. or ~1/3 of Democrats.

Congress is about to give the banks and their lobbyists their fondest wish and you think it was a good deal...

On March 07 2018 12:27 Plansix wrote:

It is a bill I’ve been aware of for like 5 years. It’s been kicking around for a while has always has support from parts of both parties. I’m just not that bent out of shape about it. Those banks were never the problem in the finance industry.

Another change is even more puzzling. Dodd-Frank says the Federal Reserve “may” tailor regulation for the biggest banks, if it sees the need to do so. The Senate legislation surgically changes that word to “shall.” What that means is that rather than being able to regulate all big banks the same way, the Federal Reserve will now need to create specific regulations for each major bank it regulates.

This change does two things: First, it gives bank regulators — who may be hoping to someday cash in at the firms they now oversee — more power to decide the fate of the banks under their purview. Second, it gives the banks’ teams of high-priced lawyers more power to tie up the Federal Reserve in court by arguing that the regulations are not sufficiently tailored to their situation.

As Gary Gensler, the former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, dryly noted in a letter to the Senate banking committee, “laws and regulations generally are better when they are applied consistently.”

There’s also a strange loophole in the bill that would make it easier for foreign megabanks like Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank to escape regulation by sheltering their US holdings in vehicles that keep them under the $250 billion mark. This seems like an obvious mistake, but when Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown offered an amendment to close the loophole, it lost on a party-line vote.

Then there’s the provision raising the limit, from 50 to 500, on the number of mortgages a bank can offer before reporting on who got the loans and at which terms — a change that will make it harder to track racial bias in lending.

And all this is being done to solve ... what problem, exactly? As Gensler notes in his letter:

Corporate and industrial loans, as well as overall loans in the banking sector, have grown significantly since precrisis levels, 35% and 31% respectively. The financial system is back to pre-crisis levels of activity, representing over 7% of gross domestic product, consistent with some other developed nations. Bank profits were at record levels in 2016 and, in the third quarter of 2017, banking industry’s average return on assets was at a 10-year high. ... The new [tax reform] law represents a 35% tax cut for the industry, or a total of $249 billion over the next 10 years.

Is the banking industry really in such dire need of relief?

On March 07 2018 12:47 Plansix wrote:
My senators didn’t vote for it and I can’t be asked to care about what other states senators do on bills I’m not worried about. If there turns out to be some top secret garbage in that bill, I’ll change my tune. But if this is the worst of the compromises in 2018, Im ok with it.

Edit: I like how my boy Frank is in their saying he understands why senators are supporting it and it doesn’t do that much damage. Glad he and I are still on the same page.

On March 07 2018 12:57 Plansix wrote:
No one I voted for or will vote for supports this bill.

Edit: Barnie Frank retired