[RD] Democrats to Roll Back Dodd-Frank

[Zkribbler]

...Bill Clinton's decision to gut the financial regulatory apparatus...

Erm...no. Deregulation was accomplished by Republican-written, Republican-backed bills. Unfortunately, Clinton had this wacko idea that he could preempt Republicans by signing this kind of legislation, but he had no part in the actual decision-making. He merely joined the lemmings in jumping off the cliff.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Seemed like a good idea at the time..... Besides, thinking about the future is for Commies!

 

[Cutlass]

You can make the case that good press makes bad law. Dodd-Frank is an illustration. It's a good idea taken much too far. It would have bee sufficient to roll back some Clinton administration guidelines designed to make mortgages available to low income people.

J

D-F didn't go 10% far enough to be good policy. But why in the hell are you bringing CRA into it? No one believes that CRA had anything to do with causing the mortgage crisis. That's just a strawman.

 

[Lexicus]

Erm...no. Deregulation was accomplished by Republican-written, Republican-backed bills. Unfortunately, Clinton had this wacko idea that he could preempt Republicans by signing this kind of legislation, but he had no part in the actual decision-making. He merely joined the lemmings in jumping off the cliff.

No, this is false. It would be nice if it were all the Republicans' fault but it was not. The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example, was actually relatively unimportant compared to changes made in the executive branch by Clinton, which the Republicans had zero input on. The most important of which was the scrapping of the criminal referral process which was the essential ingredient in the federal government's ability to build criminal cases against financial frauds.

You can read William K Black on this topic if you want to learn a lot about it. Here is a good piece he wrote on Clinton's Reinvention of Government:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/...995-speeches-announcing-the-road-to-ruin.html

William K Black was a federal prosecutor and financial regulator who was involved in prosecuting the Savings & Loan frauds in the 1980s, and resigned from the federal government in protest of Clinton's reforms that destroyed the government's ability to regulate the financial sector.

Sadly, kowtowing to the banks, as this bill they've just passed demonstrates, is a bipartisan issue. And blaming it all on the Republicans might sound and feel good but actually hinders our ability to solve the problem. I agree the Republicans are worse but the first step for anyone who actually wants to rein the banks in is to purge the Democratic Party of its bank-friendly Clintonists.

 

[BvBPL]

Even as Democrats like Heitkamp continue to push through the roll back, Democratic leadership is looking to bolster their reelection bids by deploying Joe Biden, the most charismatic man in politics, in their states.

Just as Republicans have swallowed their traditional emphases on fiscal responsibility and free trade in favor of party unity driven by Trump, so to are Democrats abandoning the pretense of any principled governmental oversight of industry in favor of winning votes.

It’s hard to say who wins when politicians abandon the principles upon which they were elected, but it is clear the citizenry is the loser.

 

[Lexicus]

D-F didn't go 10% far enough to be good policy. But why in the hell are you bringing CRA into it? No one believes that CRA had anything to do with causing the mortgage crisis. That's just a strawman.

No one with a clue, but millions of people do believe that the crisis was caused by the federal government forcing banks to lend money to poor people.

 

[onejayhawk]

D-F didn't go 10% far enough to be good policy. But why in the hell are you bringing CRA into it? No one believes that CRA had anything to do with causing the mortgage crisis. That's just a strawman.

Perhaps the people you know think it's a straw man, but it's not. You can just as easily claim it was predatory banks, though it clearly was not entirely. Neither is the whole cause. Both are important cogs in the machine. The extremes choose cogs which they most dislike to demonize. For you, it's the banks. For Sean Hannity it's Clinton's rules and the CRA. You are both right to some degree and both wrong to some degree. Dodd-Frank was not the answer and it imposed odious paperwork burdens. The largest banks will still have to comply, but medium and large banks get some relief.

No one with a clue, but millions of people do believe that the crisis was caused by the federal government forcing banks to lend money to poor people.

This is too strongly stated. Saying, "the federal government pressured banks to make unsound loans." would have some validity. There is a connection to underprivileged people via the underlying statute, so you cannot claim no connection.

J

 

[Lexicus]

Except the federal government did not pressure banks to make unsound loans. The bankers pressured the banks to make unsound loans so they could loot the banks using performance-based compensation.

For Sean Hannity it's Clinton's rules and the CRA. You are both right to some degree and both wrong to some degree. Dodd-Frank was not the answer and it imposed odious paperwork burdens. The largest banks will still have to comply, but medium and large banks get some relief.

No, Sean Hannity is entirely wrong and you are too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, Sean Hannity is entirely wrong and you are too.

Sean Hannity is a full throated shill that can't be called "wrong" because the nonsense that he spews is just the nonsense he is paid to spew. And J just parrots the nonsense so he can't really be called "wrong" either.

 

[Lexicus]

Sean Hannity is a full throated shill that can't be called "wrong" because the nonsense that he spews is just the nonsense he is paid to spew. And J just parrots the nonsense so he can't really be called "wrong" either.

Well, I said "wrong" because we have forum rules and calling them pieces of lying racist garbage would be against the forum rules.

Moderator Action: Yes it would be, and you have broken the forum rules. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[civvver]

No, this is false. It would be nice if it were all the Republicans' fault but it was not. The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, for example, was actually relatively unimportant compared to changes made in the executive branch by Clinton, which the Republicans had zero input on. The most important of which was the scrapping of the criminal referral process which was the essential ingredient in the federal government's ability to build criminal cases against financial frauds.

You can read William K Black on this topic if you want to learn a lot about it. Here is a good piece he wrote on Clinton's Reinvention of Government:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/...995-speeches-announcing-the-road-to-ruin.html

William K Black was a federal prosecutor and financial regulator who was involved in prosecuting the Savings & Loan frauds in the 1980s, and resigned from the federal government in protest of Clinton's reforms that destroyed the government's ability to regulate the financial sector.

Sadly, kowtowing to the banks, as this bill they've just passed demonstrates, is a bipartisan issue. And blaming it all on the Republicans might sound and feel good but actually hinders our ability to solve the problem. I agree the Republicans are worse but the first step for anyone who actually wants to rein the banks in is to purge the Democratic Party of its bank-friendly Clintonists.

I think this is a big reason hillary lost. Her politics resembled bush too closely, a lot more than they resembled obama imo. She was pro war, despite whatever she was spouting during election time, she's quite hawkish. And pro big business, banks etc.

Except the federal government did not pressure banks to make unsound loans. The bankers pressured the banks to make unsound loans so they could loot the banks using performance-based compensation.



No, Sean Hannity is entirely wrong and you are too.

But the government did allow this to happen. In capitalism business are always going to try to screw consumers as much as possible and have to be reined in either by free market competition or regulation. I think the government is most to blame.

 

[Lexicus]

But the government did allow this to happen. In capitalism business are always going to try to screw consumers as much as possible and have to be reined in either by free market competition or regulation. I think the government is most to blame.

By this logic government is to blame for all crime, because it didn't do enough to stop it. Of course I blame the government. The problem is the idea that this issue originates in the government, rather than being the result of the government's capture by external forces (ie, the very entities they are supposed to be overseeing). You just can't have real regulation when the people who are supposed to be regulators come from jobs where they're getting paid by the people they're supposed to regulate, then go back to those jobs when their spells as regulators are finished.

 

[Cutlass]

Perhaps the people you know think it's a straw man, but it's not. You can just as easily claim it was predatory banks, though it clearly was not entirely. Neither is the whole cause. Both are important cogs in the machine. The extremes choose cogs which they most dislike to demonize. For you, it's the banks. For Sean Hannity it's Clinton's rules and the CRA. You are both right to some degree and both wrong to some degree. Dodd-Frank was not the answer and it imposed odious paperwork burdens. The largest banks will still have to comply, but medium and large banks get some relief.


This is too strongly stated. Saying, "the federal government pressured banks to make unsound loans." would have some validity. There is a connection to underprivileged people via the underlying statute, so you cannot claim no connection.

J

The federal government made it explicitly illegal to make unsound loans. How this 'pressures them to make it' is impossible to understand.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The federal government made it explicitly illegal to make unsound loans. How this 'pressures them to make it' is impossible to understand.

You have to remember that in Republican talking points causality is almost always reversed, and since the reality J inhabits is constructed completely of Republican talking points it has to be examined differently in order to be understood. It's challenging, but not impossible. The real question, of course, is whether there is a good reason to make the effort rather than just say "well, that's J, our local mindlessly parroting Republican shill" and leave it at that.

 

[BvBPL]

I would rather you discuss the issue than discuss the people discussing the issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I would rather you discuss the issue than discuss the people discussing the issue.

Yeah, but you would rather lie about what the issue is, so your preferences aren't given a whole lot of weight. If you want a serious discussion, don't lie in the thread title.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Can we discuss the issue without going into a discussion of discussing the issue without discussing the people discussing the issue?
*sorry, couldn't help myself
And yes, blaming the democrats for this is kinda..........stupid.(can't think of a better, more fitting term right now.)

 

[BvBPL]

Sens. McCaskill and Tester both voted for Dodd-Frank ten years ago when they recognized its necessity. Ten years ago, Democratic leadership pushed heavily for the bill’s passage. Now, McCaskill and Tester are voting for repeal of the bill, and the Democratic leadership’s opposition to the bill is tepid.

Those turnabouts are worthy of note and condemnation. They are also the reason why the bill is going to be passed. Without McCaskill, Tester, and other Democrats turning tail and without Durbin not doing any whipping, the bill would not be passed. It is because of those Democrats that we will have a rollback.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sens. McCaskill and Tester both voted for Dodd-Frank ten years ago when they recognized its necessity. Ten years ago, Democratic leadership pushed heavily for the bill’s passage. Now, McCaskill and Tester are voting for repeal of the bill, and the Democratic leadership’s opposition to the bill is tepid.

Those turnabouts are worthy of note and condemnation. They are also the reason why the bill is going to be passed. Without McCaskill, Tester, and other Democrats turning tail and without Durbin not doing any whipping, the bill would not be passed. It is because of those Democrats that we will have a rollback.

Sooooo....those Democrats forced the Republicans to draft the bill? I'd be really interested if you would lay out how they did that. And how they forced Ryan and McConnell to bring it to the floor.

Or you could just admit that the whopping lie in the thread title makes the thread unworthy of 'RD' status and we can move on.

 

[Cutlass]

Sens. McCaskill and Tester both voted for Dodd-Frank ten years ago when they recognized its necessity. Ten years ago, Democratic leadership pushed heavily for the bill’s passage. Now, McCaskill and Tester are voting for repeal of the bill, and the Democratic leadership’s opposition to the bill is tepid.

Those turnabouts are worthy of note and condemnation. They are also the reason why the bill is going to be passed. Without McCaskill, Tester, and other Democrats turning tail and without Durbin not doing any whipping, the bill would not be passed. It is because of those Democrats that we will have a rollback.

That may be true. But it's also true that this is a minority of Democrats who are agreeing to a Republican led effort. When a minority of Democrats agree with a Republican lead effort, that does not make it a Democrat lead effort. Almost all the bad legislation of the past 40 years has been Republican lead efforts that had minority Democratic support. By making it sound as if the Democrats are leading here, you are actually making it easier for Republicans to get what they want, which is bad legislation.

If your goal here is actually to condemn Democrats for going along with bad Republican legislation, you're really going about it the wrong way.