6 ms·

Seems 2008 didn't cause enough misery for voters to understand their own interest. But maybe the next one will be bad enough, or the one after that worse yet.

Seems 2008 didn't cause enough misery for voters to understand their own interest. But maybe the next one will be bad enough, or the one after that worse yet. I gather the last time this happened (1870s-1930s) it was a lot of fun.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nielsbot 8y ago
Not being snarky--but did Trump promise anything specifically about bank regulation when he was campaigning? Maybe the populist "drain the swamp" could be taken as a vague direction on this issue, but in any case he seems to have done the opposite.
- jryan49 8y ago
  He said he wanted to "dismantle" Dodd-frank entirely. So he wanted to deregulate much more than this bill does. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-dodd-frank-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-dodd-fr...
  - dmix 8y ago
    The Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin more eloquently broke down their plan during his hearing in where he stated his primary goal is reducing the spurious regulations added to small/medium banks follow the crisis, while leaving the regulations for the large ones (most of which caused the original crisis). Which is exactly what this bill does by excluding big banks from the new reductions in regulation. He provided many examples and cited data showing how the number of small banks has drastically shrunk since the regulation has passed, and directly related to it, causing the US banking market to further consolidate. Ironically, there are now 5 major banks who control most of the market now largely as a result, while competition from smaller firms has declined drastically. So much for ending "too big to fail". Like most well intentioned democratic policy during the last decade intended to punish the larger banks for their destructive behavior, if anything they've come our stronger. Not to mention the bail outs with completely neutered terms in terms of bonuses and other potential disincentives for bad behavior. It's one thing to say you want to restrict the power of banks to manipulate markets and generate risk, it's another to actually do it. The fact this bill only benefitted small firms and kept the major banks under check sounds completely consistent with the Mnuchin's promises during his congressional hearing. He's on of the few Trump cabinet that seems highly competent and well suited for the job. I'm happy he has stuck around. https://www.c-span.org/video/?421858-1/treasury-secretary-nominee-steven-mnuchin-testifies-confirmation-hearing https://www.c-span.org/video/?421858-1/treasury-secretary-no...
    - tfandango 8y ago
      Thank you. I've been disturbed by much (though not all) of the coverage of this as if it's a complete repeal of Dodd-Frank.
- ars 8y ago
  This was a bipartisan act of congress, not a Trump thing.
  - everdev 8y ago
    It was both. It was a Trump campaign promise and some Democrats voted for it.
  - nielsbot 8y ago
    How many Dem votes before a bill can be labeled bipartisan? 1? In my mind bipartisan should practically be nearly equal representation from both sides.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      In my mind the bill needs significant representation from both sides to be bipartisan, but not necessarily equal. Unfortunately this had that.
- nielsbot 8y ago
  Curious why this was downvoted? It is an honest question.
mtgx 8y ago
So what's the solution? Keep voting Democrat forever? You can't realistically ask a population to vote a party or politician forever. The real solution is to reform the U.S. political system so that people don't have Republicans as their only alternative to Democrats when the Democrats become too corrupt, as well, or people just grow tired of some of their policies.
- gaius 8y ago
  So what's the solution? Keep voting Democrat forever? Remind me who was President when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed? That’s at the heart of all of this. And the so-called Community Reinvestment Act.
  - Randin 8y ago
    Bill Clinton
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    Yes, Bill Clinton was a triangulating centrist who ended up with a kind of “Republican lite” message: still “business friendly” but now with less treasonous criminal conspiracy or international war crimes or outright war on labor or gross fiscal irresponsibility vs. the previous two administrations. After his policy agenda got derailed (especially healthcare which he hoped would be one of his signature achievements) and his party was wrecked in the midterms, and then he got dragged into years of frenzied investigations into nothing, he ended up signing a lot of the legislation that the GOP-controlled legislature put on his desk over the coming few years, because he thought that would help him out politically. It didn’t really work, but we got a lot of terrible policy out of it. I don’t think it’s fair to blame “Democrats” in general for a GOP-driven policy agenda though, just because Clinton didn’t veto every bill that came across his desk. Also, in comparison to the administrations either before or after him (or if we compare their Supreme Court picks, ugh) Clinton looks positively dreamy.
  - larl 8y ago
    Yeah, ever since Bill Clinton the democrats have been Republicans, and the Republicans have been ... something new.
forgottenpass 8y ago
> Seems 2008 didn't cause enough misery for voters to understand their own interest. This is just passive aggressive nonsense echoing the meme that the Dems represent citizens' interest any better than the GOP.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

nielsbot 8y ago

Not being snarky--but did Trump promise anything specifically about bank regulation when he was campaigning? Maybe the populist "drain the swamp" could be taken as a vague direction on this issue, but in any case he seems to have done the opposite.

jryan49 8y ago
He said he wanted to "dismantle" Dodd-frank entirely. So he wanted to deregulate much more than this bill does. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-dodd-frank-regulations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/trump-dodd-fr...
- dmix 8y ago
  The Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin more eloquently broke down their plan during his hearing in where he stated his primary goal is reducing the spurious regulations added to small/medium banks follow the crisis, while leaving the regulations for the large ones (most of which caused the original crisis). Which is exactly what this bill does by excluding big banks from the new reductions in regulation. He provided many examples and cited data showing how the number of small banks has drastically shrunk since the regulation has passed, and directly related to it, causing the US banking market to further consolidate. Ironically, there are now 5 major banks who control most of the market now largely as a result, while competition from smaller firms has declined drastically. So much for ending "too big to fail". Like most well intentioned democratic policy during the last decade intended to punish the larger banks for their destructive behavior, if anything they've come our stronger. Not to mention the bail outs with completely neutered terms in terms of bonuses and other potential disincentives for bad behavior. It's one thing to say you want to restrict the power of banks to manipulate markets and generate risk, it's another to actually do it. The fact this bill only benefitted small firms and kept the major banks under check sounds completely consistent with the Mnuchin's promises during his congressional hearing. He's on of the few Trump cabinet that seems highly competent and well suited for the job. I'm happy he has stuck around. https://www.c-span.org/video/?421858-1/treasury-secretary-nominee-steven-mnuchin-testifies-confirmation-hearing https://www.c-span.org/video/?421858-1/treasury-secretary-no...
  - tfandango 8y ago
    Thank you. I've been disturbed by much (though not all) of the coverage of this as if it's a complete repeal of Dodd-Frank.
ars 8y ago
This was a bipartisan act of congress, not a Trump thing.
- everdev 8y ago
  It was both. It was a Trump campaign promise and some Democrats voted for it.
- nielsbot 8y ago
  How many Dem votes before a bill can be labeled bipartisan? 1? In my mind bipartisan should practically be nearly equal representation from both sides.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    In my mind the bill needs significant representation from both sides to be bipartisan, but not necessarily equal. Unfortunately this had that.
nielsbot 8y ago
Curious why this was downvoted? It is an honest question.

mtgx 8y ago

So what's the solution? Keep voting Democrat forever? You can't realistically ask a population to vote a party or politician forever. The real solution is to reform the U.S. political system so that people don't have Republicans as their only alternative to Democrats when the Democrats become too corrupt, as well, or people just grow tired of some of their policies.

gaius 8y ago
So what's the solution? Keep voting Democrat forever? Remind me who was President when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed? That’s at the heart of all of this. And the so-called Community Reinvestment Act.
- Randin 8y ago
  Bill Clinton
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Yes, Bill Clinton was a triangulating centrist who ended up with a kind of “Republican lite” message: still “business friendly” but now with less treasonous criminal conspiracy or international war crimes or outright war on labor or gross fiscal irresponsibility vs. the previous two administrations. After his policy agenda got derailed (especially healthcare which he hoped would be one of his signature achievements) and his party was wrecked in the midterms, and then he got dragged into years of frenzied investigations into nothing, he ended up signing a lot of the legislation that the GOP-controlled legislature put on his desk over the coming few years, because he thought that would help him out politically. It didn’t really work, but we got a lot of terrible policy out of it. I don’t think it’s fair to blame “Democrats” in general for a GOP-driven policy agenda though, just because Clinton didn’t veto every bill that came across his desk. Also, in comparison to the administrations either before or after him (or if we compare their Supreme Court picks, ugh) Clinton looks positively dreamy.
- larl 8y ago
  Yeah, ever since Bill Clinton the democrats have been Republicans, and the Republicans have been ... something new.

forgottenpass 8y ago

> Seems 2008 didn't cause enough misery for voters to understand their own interest. This is just passive aggressive nonsense echoing the meme that the Dems represent citizens' interest any better than the GOP.