Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
TBH many progressives shot themselves in the foot trying to do that to Hillary all the time.
When Tulsi Gabbard's even more fervent opposition to LGBT rights was revealed, "Oh she's antiwar though and Killary would get us into a war with Russha!"
It's sometimes best to avoid the relatively petty hypocrisy/flip flopping wars; 1990s, 2000s era talking points.
Yeah, during the primaries, I kinda begged fellow progressives to just leave that one alone. Using weak, bad arguments when perfectly strong and valid ones are abundant is silly.
Yeah, but it looks like Sanders' bank breakup bill (if passed) would preclude this possibility for the oversized banks.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), any ‘‘Too Big to Exist Institution’’ may not use or otherwise have access to advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility, the Federal Reserve discount window, or any other program or facility made available under the Federal Reserve Act.
It's been a while since I've regularly spent much time here, and I really didn't expect this post to grab so much attention. I have not abandoned the thread I started but it may take me a bit to get caught up. I'll try not to make too many up thread flash-back posts, but some of you are so good at inspiring consideration and reply that I'm sure I will not be able to completely avoid the temptations!
I hope you are all doing well and I'm looking forward to reviewing your replies thus far!
If they're broken up and insured, there would never a gain be a need to bail them out. The problem of "contagion" is eliminated. When they know they can just be bailed out whenever they over-lend in the pursuit of short-term profits, they have no incentive to behave responsibly.
Not sure there was ever much of an actual "Bernie Bro" group to begin with (beyond Clintonista nightmares and dismissive/distractionary misandristic framing). There probably were a few "false flag" misogynists who donned the facade of Sanders supporters to give vent to their own misogyny and in some cases to provoke an outsized over-reaction back against the facade they wore, in an apparently somewhat successful attempt to incite more division and disruption in the Democratic electorate. There may even be a foreign state element to this, but most of the examples I've seen to such appear to be from more typical internet political trolls than representative of any dedicated or significant group or organization within the larger faction of Sander's supporters.
Simple solution to the age thing: quickly pick a younger VP who's as much like him as possible. Whoever that younger person is will then be in a position to be treated as Bernie's post-mortem representative.
I like Tulsi Gabbard, am learning to appreciate Pete Buttigieg as I read more about him. I think there's a big role for Warren (more like Head of SEC, or AG, potentially as a USSC Justice nominee), that's about as far rightward as my tastes allow for enthusiastic support.
You're saying a primary potentially featuring up to 20 candidates will cause a split if Sanders joins? Really?
What happened to all those "accept whoever gets nominated" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" calls that were going around? Why is it only a certain sector needs to make compromises?
Caucused with Democrats throughout his political career, active in Democratic party fund-raising activities throughout his political career, campaigned with and for every Democratic Party Candidate for President (and several congressional candidates) throughout his political career, only ones I see that he doesn't "play nice" with are self-declared NAZIs and autocratic plutocrats. I know some people think that there are always some nice people on all sides, but personally, I tend to agree with him regarding NAZIs and autocratic plutocrats, forgive my biases.
He's not a democrat,
Actually he is more of a democrat than most Democratic politicos of the last several decades. To many of his supporters and voters (both in and outside the Democratic party) Sanders being an Independent, not being tied up in the Party politics and corruption, is a big feature, not a bug to be "repaired." I don't see you turning down people willing to vote for Democratic general election candidates because they don't want to register as Democratic Party members. Senator Sanders' State Democratic Party has endorsed him as their candidate to become the national Democratic Party Candidate for President in 2020.
and in 2016, despite the fact that he had pretty much lost, he stayed in the race (which helped cement divisions.)
No more so than Hillary in 2008 (or most other serious primary challengers in both parties throughout the last several decades).
...There were a lot of reasons Clinton lost... Its hard to pin it to any one factor, but anything that harmed her campaign (even if it wasn't a "death blow" by itself) would have contributed to her loss.
I hope it'll be different this time. There are a lot of candidates, many of which hold more progressive views. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, hopefully it will be someone more people will feel they can vote for than they could with Hillary.
however, there were other options for the last primary, but most had already been scuttled or sold on the idea that it was (and according to some, had been her turn since 2006-2008, a decade(s) long legacy of entitlement unfulfilled is tough to shake off, I'm sure.
I like that Bernie is in the primary. Last time he ran a lot of his ideas were considered too fringe and not mainstream enough. Those ideas have become more mainstream and he should be there as an anchor to prevent any slide back to the middle.
As many have noticed, for most of those whose progressivism seems to be more framing, than substance, the sliding started within weeks of announcing their candidacy.
True, McCain was a more known quantity, though even he went far further to the right than he ever seemed capable of before after he lost. Trump was largely an unknown and seen as a disruptor, ultimately, despite all the smoke and noise, that is what he has been. Fortunately, aside from shaking the already crumbling architecture of our international treaties and relationships, most all of what he has done with the stroke of a pen, can be undone with the stroke of a pen. His impact on the GOP will be generational, much as is Sanders impact on the DNC, with popular preferences showing the winners and losers.
In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?
Republican - 25%
Independent - 39%
Democratic - 34%
okay that's it with my review and response, only made it through a couple pages and I'm exhausted! I'll skim through the rest and then just take up wherever we are currently...
Seriously? Are you trying to support an argument that all, or even many, of the slaves in the south were supporting the policies of the Confederate States of America and that they so hated the policies of the USA that they supported the CSA and their war of exodus from the USA?
Bullcrap. Hillary Clinton's opinions blow with the wind. That is one of her biggest problems. Go back some years and see how she really feels about corporations, and any other hot topic of the day like gay marriage, the border.
Hillary Clinton, Progressive?!?!
Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”
On subjects such as gay marriage I certainly would have wished Clinton had been more progressive sooner, and thought better about the meaning of what she said, etc. etc., but to say a person's opinions blow with the wind is to imply not that they change, but that they change back again. Is there evidence of that?
I suspect that some people who accuse others of waffling are those who prefer a candidate whose cognitive dissonance is so firm that he never learns anything.
If they're broken up and insured, there would never a gain be a need to bail them out. The problem of contagion is eliminated. When they know they can just be bailed out whenever they over-lend in the pursuit of short-term profits, they have no incentive to behave responsibly.
The problem of contagion would be eliminated mitigated after the breakup, but depositor flight would happen (if at all) during the breakup itself. Why would someone continue to do business with a big bank if they cannot predict which bits of that bank will inherit which of their accounts?
The problem of contagion would be eliminated mitigated after the breakup, but depositor flight would happen (if at all) during the breakup itself. Why would someone continue to do business with a big bank if they cannot predict which bits of that bank will inherit which of their accounts?
They would know which part of the banks their deposits are in. It would just separate the commercial banking (your checking account) from the investment banking (investment "gambling").
That approach would work for a few of the smallest of the largest banks, those just over the threshold set by Sanders' proposed law. For the banks which are several times larger than the legal threshold, that approach would not work.
That approach would work for a few of the smallest of the largest banks, those just over the threshold set by Sanders' proposed law. For the banks which are several times larger than the legal threshold, that approach would not work.
When you split off the investment banking from the commercial banking, at best you would end up cutting the bank's size in half.
Here are some of the largest banks in the U.S. as of a few years back:
[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Assets_of_Largest_U.S._Banks.png/800px-Assets_of_Largest_U.S._Banks.png[/qimg]
The really large banks would have to split into various bits.
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.
Sanders' bill is endorsed by this guy, by the way:
“The new Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist proposed legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders is short and to the point. The largest banks and other highly leveraged financial institutions are simply too big – and pose a real danger to our continued economic recovery. Make them break up into smaller pieces, bringing more competition, better service and lower risks for the American economy,” said Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and current professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.
Which part of the bill requires that commercial banks be completely separated from mortgage lenders or market speculators? So far as I can tell, it merely requires that those activities be separated in terms of using insured deposits to fund speculation (an excellent idea, IMO).
Which part of the bill would prevent mid-tier banks which happen to fall under the size cap from becoming massively interconnected to other SIFIs in basically the same way Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros did?
Which part of the bill requires that commercial banks be completely separated from mortgage lenders or market speculators? So far as I can tell, it merely requires that those activities be separated in terms of using insured deposits to fund speculation (an excellent idea, IMO).
Which part of the bill would prevent mid-tier banks which happen to fall under the size cap from becoming massively interconnected to other SIFIs in basically the same way Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros did?
(1) IN GENERAL.—Any ‘‘Too Big to Exist Institution’’ that is an insured depository institution,
15 or owns such an institution, may not use any insured deposit amounts to fund—
17 (A) any activity relating to hedging that is
18 not directly related to commercial banking activity at the insured bank;
20 (B) any creation or use of derivatives for
21 speculative purposes;
22 (C) any activity related to the dealing of
23 derivatives; any creation of, or lending against, new or existing forms of structured or structured derivatives products, including
2 collateralized debt obligations, collateralized
3 loan obligations, and synthetic derivatives of
4 collateralized debt obligations and collateralized
5 loan obligations; or
6 (E) any other form of speculative activity
7 that regulators specify
Bullcrap. Hillary Clinton's opinions blow with the wind. That is one of her biggest problems. Go back some years and see how she really feels about corporations, and any other hot topic of the day like gay marriage, the border.
Hillary Clinton, Progressive?!?!
Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”
Yes, she changed her opinion. She did so YEARS ago, before she entered the 2016 primaries.
The idea that a politician cannot ever change their policies or beliefs without them being suspect seems like a rather bizarre purity test. Can you honestly say that Sanders has been consistent with every belief that he's had?
Back when Bush was president, Sanders was asked whether Vermont should legalize same sex marriage. His response? "Not right now". Doesn't sound very progressive, does it. So Sanders hasn't actually been a vocal advocate for same sex marriage all the time either.
In fact, while he did vote against the Defense of Marriage act, his primary concern was not protection of gay rights, it was because he felt it interferred with state's rights.
The aspect of the banks' size that makes them too big to fail is inter-bank connectivity between one another. Those assets in your chart are checking accounts, home mortgages, hedge funds, etc all rolled into one. Everyone's checking accounts will simply be safely quarantined into the commercial banks.
You know, up here in Canada, in the great white north, our economy is dominated by 5 really big banks. If any of them failed, it would wipe out our economy.
Yet there is no call to 'break up' the banks (even though we currently have a left-of-center political party in charge). I don't even think our far-left NDP party wants to break up the banks. Why not?
Because our country's leaders have decided to make sure that the banks are well regulated. (They've taken the position that decent regulation is preferable to trying to break up banks to somehow make it so a failure in one won't crash the system.) Its a system that seems to have worked pretty well for us.
The U.S. doesn't necessarily need to break up the banks (whether that can be done easily or not.) Simply making sure that there is proper regulation and oversight would likely be enough.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
