Democrats are just as bad as Republicans

[Atreus21]

If you believe this you need your head examined.

Republicans attempting to screw the taxpayers again.

What does easing financial regulations have to do with taxes?

 

[rudeguy]

Because not prosecuting them is the same as making the activity legal again.

What part of the bill that you are referencing would make the activity legal again?

 

[PokerGuy]

What part of the bill that you are referencing would make the activity legal again?

Shush, leave that "logic" out of this. It's republican and thus must be evil!

 

[emperus]

You need to learn to read and comprehend. He said no such thing.

Interpret this for me then.

Do you honestly believe Obama will sign the bill if it gets past the Senate?

 

[PokerGuy]

Interpret this for me then.

He didn't say he hoped the bill would be veto'd or that it he was against it (I have no idea if he opposes it or not), he pointed out that obummer would not sign it as-is regardless.

 

[fskimospy]

Shush, leave that "logic" out of this. It's republican and thus must be evil!

It allows banks that are insured with taxpayer dollars to hold risky securities for longer than was previously legal.

So I mean basically he's right.

 

[Anarchist420]

so many people claim to wall street so much, yet they support the central govt's power to tax. what a bunch of economic illiterates. given that wall street has no competition, there is no way in heaven, hell or anywhere in between that more regs or more taxes could hurt any bankers on wall street.

it's that fuckin' simple dudes... ending all taxes will give wall street firms competition and then wall street bankers will not only be more careful with everyone else's money; they'll also be a little bit less wealthy.

 

[dank69]

What does easing financial regulations have to do with taxes?

Did you enjoy bailing out the banks the first time around? Why is this even a question?

 

[dank69]

I'm sure conservatives that think this is no big deal will be willing to foot the entire bailout next time so we libtards don't have to pay.

 

[emperus]

He didn't say he hoped the bill would be veto'd or that it he was against it (I have no idea if he opposes it or not), he pointed out that obummer would not sign it as-is regardless.

The comprehension part you are missing is the context of the thread he wrote it in.

 

[theeedude]

The American people enjoyed bailing out banks the first time, voted GOP to do it again.
We need to respect that.

 

[rudeguy]

Because not prosecuting them is the same as making the activity legal again.

What part of the bill that you are referencing would make the activity legal again?

 

[dank69]

What part of the bill that you are referencing would make the activity legal again?

The part that revises the Volcker Rule:

The House bill revises the so-called Volcker rule, a key part of the financial overhaul law, which would limit banks' riskiest trading bets. That kind of risk-taking on Wall Street helped trigger the 2008 crisis

 

[glenn1]

It allows banks that are insured with taxpayer dollars to hold risky securities for longer than was previously legal.

So I mean basically he's right.

Any security is risky in a meltdown like 2008; even money markets and commercial paper markets froze up. As I said before, there is nothing inherently super risky about CDOs and the prohibition against them is stupid but then again Congress has the right to pass stupid laws. Still no reason why Democrats need to exercise this right so often. If anything having some CDO assets in their portfolios might make the bank's trading portfolios LESS risky due to improved diversification.

If you were *really* interested in reducing risk you could advocate more sensible reforms that the CDO prohibition. A quick handful I'd put in place would be directing the Fed to increase margin collateral requirements, require SEC to impose full fiduciary responsibilities for all brokers (and not just registered investment advisors), improved rules to prevent fire sale liquidations of securities in the event of a temporary loss in liquidity, and more.

 

[rudeguy]

The part that revises the Volcker Rule:

you say it revises it, you don't say what revisions it makes.

Let me guess, you didn't actually read what changes were made?

 

[dank69]

you say it revises it, you don't say what revisions it makes.

Let me guess, you didn't actually read what changes were made?

I didn't say it, the article and many others like it said it. If you feel the articles are wrong feel free to explain why.

 

[rudeguy]

I didn't say it, the article and many others like it said it. If you feel the articles are wrong feel free to explain why.

Because its just another liberal fear mongering fluff piece.

So they pushed back compliance on a couple things from 2017 to 2019?

 

[dank69]

Because its just another liberal fear mongering fluff piece.

So they pushed back compliance on a couple things from 2017 to 2019?

Ah, the liberal media conspiracy card. Compelling.

 

[fskimospy]

Any security is risky in a meltdown like 2008; even money markets and commercial paper markets froze up. As I said before, there is nothing inherently super risky about CDOs and the prohibition against them is stupid but then again Congress has the right to pass stupid laws. Still no reason why Democrats need to exercise this right so often. If anything having some CDO assets in their portfolios might make the bank's trading portfolios LESS risky due to improved diversification.

If you were *really* interested in reducing risk you could advocate more sensible reforms that the CDO prohibition. A quick handful I'd put in place would be directing the Fed to increase margin collateral requirements, require SEC to impose full fiduciary responsibilities for all brokers (and not just registered investment advisors), improved rules to prevent fire sale liquidations of securities in the event of a temporary loss in liquidity, and more.

I'd be for all of those things! I don't think federally insured banks should be able to engage in proprietary trading at all, however.

 

[glenn1]

I'd be for all of those things! I don't think federally insured banks should be able to engage in proprietary trading at all, however.

Mind if I ask why?

 

[kage69]

I wish dems would default the government over party dogma. Maybe do a little voter suppression, then take a swing at legislating morality and control over women's bodies. Washington could always use another champion for domestic and foreign corporate welfare too, those concerns about vets, the middle class and 9/11 responders should be redirected in the future. There is a group of dems that do seem to see things that way, but a larger portion of the party is still clueless about their real responsibilities here.

C'mon dems, get with the program!

 

[fskimospy]

Mind if I ask why?

Basically because when we provide federal backing for these institutions they get an implicit subsidy in the form of access to federal credit, depositor insurance, etc.

Not only does that give them an unfair advantage over other trading outfits but that federal backing allows them to take excessive risks they might not take otherwise. I think it distorts the markets and does so in a way that allows them to privatize profits and socialize losses.

 

[glenn1]

Basically because when we provide federal backing for these institutions they get an implicit subsidy in the form of access to federal credit, depositor insurance, etc.

Not only does that give them an unfair advantage over other trading outfits but that federal backing allows them to take excessive risks they might not take otherwise. I think it distorts the markets and does so in a way that allows them to privatize profits and socialize losses.

I'm sure the EU banks thank you for leaving the field to them, since bank prop trading is still legal there. Again, I don't have huge opposition to this rule but think there's so many other pieces of low-hanging fruit available that is seems strange progressives chose this one to start with.

 

[werepossum]

I would say that the behavior of Wall St. says that they don't view it as the Democrats not giving a shit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/10/democrats-wall-street_n_6445276.html

(forget that it's the huffington post, the chart from the center for responsive politics is what I'm interested in)

If you look at it, between the '08 and '10 data points is when Dodd-Frank passed. I'm sure some of it is political opportunism, but still, Wall St. doesn't seem to be very happy with the Democrats following that.

Ahem. From your link:

The recent move of financial sector money away from Democrats has been driven by the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms in 2010, proposals to increase capital gains tax rates and the embrace of Occupy Wall Street by some Democrats. Big bankers have also reacted -- perhaps overreacted -- to the way they were discussed in Washington after they helped melt down the global economy.

Only proggies are stupid enough to believe that they can demonize people without those people reacting, or attempt to take people's possessions without those people resisting or changing behavior.

If you're not going to prosecute people when they break the law, what's the difference if the activity is illegal or not? The truth that you just don't want to hear or accept is that neither party is actually on the side of the 'little guy' against wall street. One side pretends to be more than the other, but neither of them are.

The difference is in how much money the Dems can extort from Wall Street. As long as the Dems are in charge and have federal agencies able to prosecute at will, Wall Street has to pony up or risk enforcement. Now - not so much.

The correct solution would be to reinstate Glass-Steagall separation and let investment banks invest in whatever they wish, with the federal government statutorily prohibited from bailing them out. Neither party will go there, although the Dems are better. Well . . . less bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahem. From your link:

So you quoted part of my link in order to agree with me? Uhmm, thanks.

Only proggies are stupid enough to believe that they can demonize people without those people reacting, or attempt to take people's possessions without those people resisting or changing behavior.

Can you provide any quotes from "proggies" saying anything even remotely to that effect?

The difference is in how much money the Dems can extort from Wall Street. As long as the Dems are in charge and have federal agencies able to prosecute at will, Wall Street has to pony up or risk enforcement. Now - not so much.

The correct solution would be to reinstate Glass-Steagall separation and let investment banks invest in whatever they wish, with the federal government statutorily prohibited from bailing them out. Neither party will go there, although the Dems are better. Well . . . less bad.

The data does not back up your interpretation in any way.