Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

[Ford]

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Again, what is concrete about Bernie's plan? Below is a good article that describes the differences between the two. To me, it just appears that HRC has a far greater grasp of the problem than Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rs-schism-grows-on-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

I'm hoping that you don't think that the NY Times is conservative!!

Ah, but the Times dares question the Savior, Saint Bernard. Anything less than a full throated defense of Bernie's plan is sacrilege and an abandonment of all that True Believers of the Bern hold dear.

Not only that, but the Times didn't heap enough criticism on Sith Lord Darth Hillary and her nefarious schemes to sell out America to the evil Wall Street Banksters.

And don't even get me started on how that fiendish Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stole the nomination from its rightful owner, Savior Sanders. The whole system is rigged, and the evil media like the New York Slimes has betrayed us all and is trying to deny certain victory to the Last Great Hope of our Nation, Bernie.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think what can be done about our banking system probably deserves it own thread. I'll freely admit this stuff is over my head but I do have one thought on the subject.

 

[arkirk]

Again, what is concrete about Bernie's plan? Below is a good article that describes the differences between the two. To me, it just appears that HRC has a far greater grasp of the problem than Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rs-schism-grows-on-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

I'm hoping that you don't think that the NY Times is conservative!!

Ah, but the Times dares question the Savior, Saint Bernard. Anything less than a full throated defense of Bernie's plan is sacrilege and an abandonment of all that True Believers of the Bern hold dear.

Not only that, but the Times didn't heap enough criticism on Sith Lord Darth Hillary and her nefarious schemes to sell out America to the evil Wall Street Banksters.

And don't even get me started on how that fiendish Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stole the nomination from its rightful owner, Savior Sanders. The whole system is rigged, and the evil media like the New York Slimes has betrayed us all and is trying to deny certain victory to the Last Great Hope of our Nation, Bernie.

Schulz is an ass. She has worked hard to see to it that her candidate and boss has no competition and allows no comparison between Hillary's waffling policies and those of her competition. You have very mediocre demands of people you support. That surprises me. In this age, there is lots of mediocrity. It makes the pickings easy for corrupt politicians. Sorry you feel the way you do, but can't help you with this one. I have never been one who said Bernie was a savior, but I think he is someone who could do far more good than a lying kleptocrat.

 

[Ford]

You have very mediocre demands of people you support.

And your sarcasm detector is broken.

 

[untermensche]

Size = wealth = power

Simply reducing the size of any corporation and you reduce it's power.

And you don't think that the foreign banks will swoop in to replace the weaker banks?

Replace them how?

To replace them you have to take what they own and their customers.

What making them weaker does is make them less able to control the government and regulators.

 

[Tristan Scott]

A CNN reporter was at one of the GS speeches and said that the speech was un-remarkable. There is one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs (Google Goldman Sachs 10,000 women) on the web in which she applauded them for a women in the workplace initiative. Big deal. There is no win in her releasing any of her paid speeches because no matter what is in the content they will be snipped and edited and used against her in ads.

One could say the same thing about Trump's tax returns.

Apples and oranges. Tax returns of candidates should be made public, but aren't always. Clinton's speeches were not open to the public, they were for private audiences. I don't see a precedent anywhere for her releasing this information.

If someone lies about it, there is always the record to vindicate them.

Thats not the way it happens though. When GHW Bush raised taxes after saying read my lips, the Clinton Campaign played that over and over in their ads, it didn't matter that his raising taxes was the right thing to do. ( It was in fact a courageous thing to do since he knew it was going to cost him in the next election.) Anyway there is no upside for her releasing those transcripts.

Further in a democracy we ask our to-be-elected officials for some transparency.

Yes, we do. Some day maybe we will live in a less cynical society where our pols can feel free to be more transparent.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One could say the same thing about Trump's tax returns.

Apples and oranges. Tax returns of candidates should be made public, but aren't always. Clinton's speeches were not open to the public, they were for private audiences. I don't see a precedent anywhere for her releasing this information.

They weren't for private audiences. Quite a lot of people in the country are passive investors of Wall St, but Hillary actually copyrighted the talks post-stenography, very, very bizarre, if you ask me. But then regardless of a precedent, you make stuff public in your financial dealings when you decide to become a public official. It doesn't matter if it's a tax return or other income. The public ought to know what's going on in a transparent democracy when someone runs for office.

If someone lies about it, there is always the record to vindicate them.

Thats not the way it happens though. When GHW Bush raised taxes after saying read my lips, the Clinton Campaign played that over and over in their ads, it didn't matter that his raising taxes was the right thing to do. ( It was in fact a courageous thing to do since he knew it was going to cost him in the next election.) Anyway there is no upside for her releasing those transcripts.

Further in a democracy we ask our to-be-elected officials for some transparency.

Yes, we do. Some day maybe we will live in a less cynical society where our pols can feel free to be more transparent.

As I wrote in the point above, whether it's cynical or not is not very relevant, since the release of the full transcripts would exonerate any taking out of context or other shenanigans. It's not actually me being cynical here, it's you.

 

[Tristan Scott]

It's not actually me being cynical here, it's you.

No shit, Sherlock. I'm sure you research all the bullshit that comes out about candidates during the heat of a campaign, just like I do. It may come as a shock to you, but most people don't, in fact a vast majority of people don't.

58% of the republican and 41% of the independent voters believe Global Warming is a hoax. In 2012 a survey of 2200 Americans found that 26% of them thought the sun circled the earth, These people re-elected George W Bush in 2004. Yeah, you bet I'm cynical. Maybe someday I'll stop being cynical when people quit being so fucking gullible.

So that was my point. I'm cynical and so is Hillary Clinton when it comes to the voters, and for good reason.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where they differ is in reimplementation of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Can you point to that vote, not that I'm doubting you. I would just like to see something solid in this discussion instead of the runny diarrhea that's been put out so far.

There's also TARP -- known informally as the Wall Street bailout.

From Wiki:
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion, and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[2]

Here is the roll call in the Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213

As you can see a lot of Democrats voted for it and some against. Obama and Clinton voted for it, Sanders and Feingold voted against it.

Note that I am not claiming that I necessarily buy into the conspiracy theory, but I AM answering your [and others'] question.

 

[arkirk]

You have very mediocre demands of people you support.

And your sarcasm detector is broken.

Sorry about that. I think remarks so ridiculous are being seriously proffered in this forum and in the mainstream press, it becomes hard to detect whether we are reading Gulliver's Travels or Marvel Comics. The truth is that public demands on these schlock candidates is indeed very low and moral responsibility for anything they may do is never assigned. It is as if once a person becomes part of the establishment political class they are immune from the consequences of what they do...and can even have the gall to shoot for the highest office in the land. These people need to be treated like any other person who might do what they do...oh God! That should extend to people who create wars. What is that if it is not mass murder? This really hasn't been a good season for humor.

 

[untermensche]

Bernie wants to do something real. Something concrete.

Hillary talks about some kind of regulation that these banks just circumvent because they own the regulators.

Again, what is concrete about Bernie's plan? Below is a good article that describes the differences between the two. To me, it just appears that HRC has a far greater grasp of the problem than Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rs-schism-grows-on-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

I'm hoping that you don't think that the NY Times is conservative!!

What Clinton is doing is trying to implement what the banks want.

She is working for the banks.

And somehow this is seen as a positive.

 

[laughing dog]

LD: I believe that you are an economist. Putting on your economist hat, do you think that it's wise for an economy to have a weak banking system?

I don't know what you mean by a weak banking system because I don't see how preventing banks from reaching the size of being "too big to fail" would necessarily worsen a banking system.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Again, what is concrete about Bernie's plan? Below is a good article that describes the differences between the two. To me, it just appears that HRC has a far greater grasp of the problem than Bernie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/u...rs-schism-grows-on-too-big-to-fail-banks.html

I'm hoping that you don't think that the NY Times is conservative!!

What Clinton is doing is trying to implement what the banks want.

She is working for the banks.

And somehow this is seen as a positive.

Uhhh, negative. Banks hate Dodd Frank. I'm a banker. They hate the extra capital requirement.

 

[untermensche]

What Clinton is doing is trying to implement what the banks want.

She is working for the banks.

And somehow this is seen as a positive.

Uhhh, negative. Banks hate Dodd Frank. I'm a banker. They hate the extra capital requirement.

But if it's a choice between that and being broken up, they will swallow it.

This is the choice the banks want.

They want no part of Bernie and Warren.

 

[Harry Bosch]

LD: I believe that you are an economist. Putting on your economist hat, do you think that it's wise for an economy to have a weak banking system?

I don't know what you mean by a weak banking system because I don't see how preventing banks from reaching the size of being "too big to fail" would necessarily worsen a banking system.

Well, first off, how do you define "too big to fail"? I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Uhhh, negative. Banks hate Dodd Frank. I'm a banker. They hate the extra capital requirement.

But if it's a choice between that and being broken up, they will swallow it.

This is the choice the banks want.

They want no part of Bernie and Warren.

Trump is on the bank's side, he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. I don't think that Bernie understands the complexity of finance. He seems to be driven by revenge, not reform to help the economy.

 

[untermensche]

But if it's a choice between that and being broken up, they will swallow it.

This is the choice the banks want.

They want no part of Bernie and Warren.

Trump is on the bank's side, he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. I don't think that Bernie understands the complexity of finance. He seems to be driven by revenge, not reform to help the economy.

The complexities of finance?

I love it. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think that Bernie understands the complexity of finance.

This is pretty quotable. When a voter asks Hillary, "why haven't you released your transcripts of all your Wall St speeches," she should hold up her nose, turn her head away and say, "I don't think Bernie [and people like you] understand the complexity of finance."

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't think that Bernie understands the complexity of finance.

This is pretty quotable. When a voter asks Hillary, "why haven't you released your transcripts of all your Wall St speeches," she should hold up her nose, turn her head away and say, "I don't think Bernie [and people like you] understand the complexity of finance."

You have my permission to quote me whenever you'd like!

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know what you mean by a weak banking system because I don't see how preventing banks from reaching the size of being "too big to fail" would necessarily worsen a banking system.

Well, first off, how do you define "too big to fail"?

Here is a primer  Too_big_to_fail.

I work for a small regional bank, so I should favor my competitors getting hurt. But I care about the economy as well. Just like any corporation, as a company grows it's economies of scales grows, it's OH decreases as a percentage of sales, and etc. Larger banks can offer greater pricing, better products. Larger corporations like Nike and Intel need larger banks to handle their work. A smaller bank can't handle a large corporation like that. Therefore, if we artificially hack off the larger banks, Intel and Nike will move to larger international banks like HSBC and etc.

So? If a bank is "too large to fail", then its incentives for prudent lending are reduced since it knows it will be bailed out. If other countries wish to bear the costs of having banks that are "too big to fail", then that is good for our economy since we will not bear the costs of their bailouts.