14 ms·

Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another

Doesn't seem true. For example, the Frank Dod Act was passed by Democrats and Wall St. hates that law. Another example, the Consumer Protection Bureau. Another agency that Wall St. hates which was passed by Democrats. If anything, it seems that again Republicans are happy to pass laws that lowers taxes for Wall St. and removes regulation. To your point, Wall St. donates to Democrats but it seems to have very limited effect compared to Republicans.

x0x0 9y ago
I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.
- x0x0 9y ago
  effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.
camelite 9y ago
The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no
richardknop 9y ago
Frank Dod Act is a ridiculously watered down version of regulation that was originally proposed. Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless. So I would say that Democrats have been very good to bankers in this particular case. For optics reasons (it was right after the financial crisis) something had to be done and this was the best possible scenario for bankers so I'd say they were glad with it under the circumstances.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless This is wrong. Was Dodd Frank reduced in scope and severity from its first drafting? Yes. Does that amount to watering it down to meaninglessness? No. The bits that stuck have bite. Some bits had, in my opinion, more bite than merit.

x0x0 9y ago

I dunno, I think Wall St donations to dems have plenty of affects. See eg Wasserman Schultz and payday lenders.

x0x0 9y ago
effects rather. I shouldn't post when tired.

camelite 9y ago

The fact that an act was passed after the greatest bubble pop since the great depression shouldnt be enough to convince you that dems as a whole arent beholden to wall street. they had zero choice but to do SOMETHING. look instead to what they did before the crash. compare what they did to what they could have done. look at what happened to proposals to do more. look at wall street profits a year after the crisis. look at the doners. less beholden than the reps, probably. not beholden at all? no

richardknop 9y ago

Frank Dod Act is a ridiculously watered down version of regulation that was originally proposed. Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless. So I would say that Democrats have been very good to bankers in this particular case. For optics reasons (it was right after the financial crisis) something had to be done and this was the best possible scenario for bankers so I'd say they were glad with it under the circumstances.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Wall Street lobbyists made Democrats nerf it to the point it's almost meaningless This is wrong. Was Dodd Frank reduced in scope and severity from its first drafting? Yes. Does that amount to watering it down to meaninglessness? No. The bits that stuck have bite. Some bits had, in my opinion, more bite than merit.