Dems Rebuild

[Danny Bateman]

I guess that would be my question too. Did you have any particular areas where you felt banks really were over-encumbered?

 

All I've heard so far was a lot of people tossing out a non-specific statement about how this will be good for "main-street banks" that have been hit too hard, but they don't elucidate at all much beyond that.

 

I look around and see remnants of banks that drove us to the brink exhibiting a lot of clout over elected officials. Wells Fargo was given a pittance of a fine, barely a slap on the wrist, for fraudulently exploiting unwitting customers. I also see Equifax being let off the hook for exposing sensitive information of millions of us. Every time I hear something new that story seems to get worse, now approaching roughly half of Americans they've hosed.

 

Equifax isn't a bank. But the thrust is the same. Huge financial institutions wield a ton of power - more than they should - and we are proudly announcing ours is an environment where the government doesn't care & won't do anything if you do get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

[zoogs]

Yeah, it seems along the lines of all the non-specific statements that seem based mostly on the conviction that, fundamentally, the government is "too big". I'm all for environmental "tweaks", but these regulations go too far. I'm all for everyone paying their fair share but the wealthy and big corporations are being taxed too much in America compared to the rest of the world (n.b, not objectively true). I'm all for sensible gun regulations, but don't you know that they're actually called "suppressors" and and the almighty anti-gun lobby is running amok here? 

 

This is meant to cover a broad spectrum of conservative arguments -- I'm not making the claim that all conservatives align with every single one of these statements. The larger point is to be specific. "Tweaks" or "Don't go too far" is a nebulous catchphrase, and it's often used in service of the above while presenting itself as uniquely moderate and reasonable.

 

What about the possibility that the status quo baseline is the extreme position, but in the other direction? Knowing our history, this should be seen as, obviously, the far more likely case.

--

Sort of relatedly, let's talk about WV and the teacher strike, which should one of the biggest national stories of the day. 

Quote

“They’re saying we can’t afford it,” Ted Boettner, director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, said of legislators. “Well, we can’t afford it because we’ve done these large tax cuts.”

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-tax-cuts-led-to-west-virginias-massive-teacher-strike_us_5a99bde9e4b0a0ba4ad3513b

 

Democrats run too much to the center. It was under a Democratic governor in 2006 -- Joe Manchin, currently Democratic Senator from WV -- and I believe even a Democratic legislature that they pursued this corporate tax cut agenda, with the idea that it would create all these new jobs. If that sounds familiar, it's the same argument made in KS, and frankly it's the same argument made by every Republican and Reasonable Conservative: corporate tax cuts yields growth. It'll pay for itself!

 

Going on a decade later, well, it turns out it didn't create all those jobs. But the hundreds of millions in annual corporate tax cuts made some people pretty happy, I'm sure.

 

This is the rank BS at the heart of all these "we can't afford <public service>" arguments. Are you kidding? Of course we can. We just choose to spend money on tax breaks benefiting those who need it least instead of on...uh, living salaries for the people in charge of public education. If we could see these tax breaks as expenditures and hold their recipients to the same standard as we do food stamp recipients (let's make sure they aren't buying lobster, guys, it's really important that they eat like poor people), then we would only pass a fraction of the corporate tax cuts that we do.

 

The wealthy and powerful capitalize on an incredible ability to portray themselves as perpetual victims. Time to stop buying what they're selling.

[Danny Bateman]

I do wonder how many times we need to see the tax cut case study play out at the state level before more people realize it's not a panacea for all our economic ills. In fact, it offers little in the way of long-term benefit and paying the piper when the bill comes due isn't very fun, as Kansas and West Virginia are finding out.

 

I'd gladly have the debate with people about taxes. I just wish people would cast their lot with the Grover Norquists of the world if that's how they feel.

 

But I agree, zoogs. We've definitely gone too far. Too far in the other direction. People (and entities) with more money have more power politically. That is wrong.

 

 

 

[zoogs]

Btw, these Democratic Senators joining hands with Republicans to gut Dodd Frank. That's shocking to me, how many there are. They should all be primaried out. Sorry, guys. Maybe join up with Evan McMullin and be who you really are.

 

And let's remember who these Democrats are. These are the "reasonable" ones -- the ones who aren't so liberal, can talk a fiscal conservative game. These are the Democrats who Republicans dissatisfied with their own party's branding think of when they say "I believe there are moderate Democrats", and those to their left are what is meant by "there are crazy ideologues on both sides". 

 

The Democratic Party writ large is moving away from these guys -- they are not the establishment wing, which under Obama ushered in Dodd-Frank and are gnashing their teeth at this development. This movement should accelerate. And liberals should keep in mind that conservatives, who hit "Democrat establishment" and their Wall St-cozy ties with glee, actually think these are the only kind of Democrats who aren't crazy. For them, "the establishment left" is nothing more than a useful partisan dividing line. It's highly disingenuous. Get out of here with your "Hillary gave speeches at Goldman Sachs, LOL corruption; by the way Dodd Frank should be gutted and only the socialist cranks of the left can disagree" doublespeak.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, zoogs said:

2008?

 

OK, be specific. How did we “obviously” go too far? 

 

1 hour ago, dudeguyy said:

I guess that would be my question too. Did you have any particular areas where you felt banks really were over-encumbered?

You're really expecting me to pull specifics out of the air when I'm not deep in the industry?  

 

What I said was that many times in this type of situation when things crash the way they did, regulations are put in place in a hurry and they need tweaked after looking back.  

 

I can't name specific regulations.  But, I can understand how it may have happened.  And, there are lots of regulations that are behind the scenes that none of us ever see.  I am NOT an advocate of deregulating.  I'm all in favor of continual improvement in the regulations to make sure they are both accomplishing the goal and as low regulation as possible. (underlined part is important).

 

I'm actually very surprised if either of you have an issue with what I'm saying.  If you do....that's odd.

[zoogs]

I would expect that if you think the regulations went "too far" and that a lighter hand was needed in the form of "tweaks" then these words have some actual meaning.

 

If you're arguing that they went too far as a result of being hurried, what was it that was hurried? If you have no clue what was even in it (and OK, none of us are deep in the industry here), then why the uncritical conviction that it was "too far"? Why the statement that "regulations obviously don't work"? If you're going to fully believe in something, doesn't it need to be moored to the specific realities both of what has transpired and what is being proposed?

 

I can see how if you axiomatically hold the idea that regulations always need to be scaled back from their excessive impulses, you'd be fine with what is happening. But what about the possibility that any regulations that actually made it through were whittled down by corporate lobby intransigence and Republican resistance? Or that even the Democratic Party has had a reasonable corporate-friendly arm? What of the possibility that the regulations, which naturally have been undergoing refinement and development, need to be firmed up but instead have been facing the threat of being gutted their entire lifetime? Or that they never even went far enough in the first place, and fundamentally need to go much further? 

 

Is it even fair to call this "ongoing improvement"? The Crapo bill seems like a straightforward rollback of as much as they could muster support for.

[Moiraine]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

(and OK, none of us are deep in the industry here)

 

I kind of am but I'm probably not allowed to be specific and I haven't been on the job for 2 months yet so I don't know a lot

What I can say is some of the regulations have had some unintended good consequences. And that some of them shocked me with how common sense they were. Many of the ones I've learned about are basically "Don't screw the customer over in a way that should have already been illegal centuries ago." E.g., if you state that the APR is 10%, the APR must be 10%. If the APR is not 10%, you have to fix it and tell the customer you screwed up.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Moiraine

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

I kind of am but I'm probably not allowed to be specific and I haven't been on the job for 2 months yet so I don't know a lot

What I can say is some of the regulations have had some unintended good consequences. And that some of them shocked me with how common sense they were. Many of the ones I've learned about are basically "Don't screw the customer over in a way that should have already been illegal centuries ago." E.g., if you state that the APR is 10%, the APR must be 10%.

This is one part that has been important to individual rights to information. The Consumer Financial Protections Bureau was made to essential stop companies from subverting laws by putting things in the fine print or failing to disclose pertinent information to protect individuals right to information and legal terms they were agreeing to.

 

Things that are, "duh, don't screw people over" kind of stuff. But thanks to Trump and Mick Mulvaney, they refuse to use the group to actually do the job set before them and have even drop cases against companies changed with defrauding people. 

 

This is just the tip of the iceburg of what this did to help protect individual rights, but one of the big things I am aware of that was in it. 

[Moiraine]

2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

This is one part that has been important to individual rights to information. The Consumer Financial Protections Bureau was made to essential stop companies from subverting laws by putting things in the fine print or failing to disclose pertinent information to protect individuals right to information and legal terms they were agreeing to.

 

Things that are, "duh, don't screw people over" kind of stuff. But thanks to Trump and Mick Mulvaney, they refuse to use the group to actually do the job set before them and have even drop cases against companies changed with defrauding people. 

 

This is just the tip of the iceburg of what this did to help protect individual rights, but one of the big things I am aware of that was in it. 

 

 

Oh ya, another one is if you change the privacy agreement (which tells all the ways the bank can use your info and who they give it to), you have to notify your customers. Oh, and you have to give them a privacy agreement to begin with, and they are allowed to not sign it, and they can "unsign" it at any time.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Moiraine

[Danny Bateman]

This seems to be somewhat in the realm of fiduciary responsibility, does it not? IIRC that was part of Dodd-Frank as well, requiring financial advisers to do what is in the best interest of those they advise, rather than withholding important information or otherwise screwing them over. This seems like a regulation everyone but the most shady finance guys would agree with.

 

BRB, I take no issue with what you're saying. I just think it serves as an opportunity to examine our own biases. Maybe I'm wrong. I need more info on the good/bad of the bill. But I tend to think banks are doing OK but have a huge lobbying arm with ridiculous resources to convince pols they still need more help.

 

An illustrative example of what zoogs mentioned above, about whittled-down bills: The ACA. There's a very pragmatic argument it would be a much better law if it had included a public option. But it didn't have one because thatr was a bridge too far for people Rs and Joe Lieberman.

Edited March 7, 2018 by dudeguyy

[Guy Chamberlin]

I wish I liked the Democratic Party better. 

[zoogs]

44 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

An illustrative example of what zoogs mentioned above, about whittled-down bills: The ACA. There's a very pragmatic argument it would be a much better law if it had included a public option. But it didn't have one because thatr was a bridge too far for people Rs and Joe Lieberman.

 

Yeah! And imagine being dissatisfied that the Dems weren't sufficiently to the left on healthcare, for example, and having that translate to electing Republicans in office at every level of government instead. 

 

Except don't imagine.

 

If this is someone's actual position, for example, I would make the argument that it's extremely clear they don't actually care about healthcare. They have a "I want to complain about the Dems" policy preference, not a "we need to move healthcare to the left" policy preference.

Edited March 7, 2018 by zoogs

[Danny Bateman]

I just stumbled onto this and think it fits this discussion perfectly.

 

 

[zoogs]

 

Quote

 

To frame the same point another way: Air quality regulations serve as a downward redistribution of wealth, out of the pockets of industrialists and into the pockets of ordinary Americans, particularly the poor and vulnerable Americans (African Americans and Hispanics in particular) who tend to live closest to pollution sources. They shift costs, from the much higher health and social costs of pollution remediation to the comparatively smaller costs of pollution abatement. 

And therein lies the source of industry and GOP rage toward EPA.

 

Great article, dudeguyy. Let's be super clear about this. Conservatives hate downward wealth redistribution and could give s#!t all about costs borne by the poor, whom they think basically deserve it anyway. 

 

To ascribe all this to Trump would be blind. Trump doesn't know anything about anything. This is core motivation of the Good Conservative, the Bus#!tes whom conservatives are happy to see out-of-touch liberals pining for these days, the estimable policy wonks at conservative think tanks and the editors at journals of the conservative literati, the global warming denialists of the world, formerly employed by the Wall Street Journal and to whom today the current New York Times editorial room loves to give a platform.

 

This is their fundamental morality and philosophy. You're taking money from rich, successful people who worked hard, out of a misguided sense that the good it causes is merited.

[BigRedBuster]

3 hours ago, zoogs said:

I would expect that if you think the regulations went "too far" and that a lighter hand was needed in the form of "tweaks" then these words have some actual meaning.

 

If you're arguing that they went too far as a result of being hurried, what was it that was hurried? If you have no clue what was even in it (and OK, none of us are deep in the industry here), then why the uncritical conviction that it was "too far"? Why the statement that "regulations obviously don't work"? If you're going to fully believe in something, doesn't it need to be moored to the specific realities both of what has transpired and what is being proposed?

 

I can see how if you axiomatically hold the idea that regulations always need to be scaled back from their excessive impulses, you'd be fine with what is happening. But what about the possibility that any regulations that actually made it through were whittled down by corporate lobby intransigence and Republican resistance? Or that even the Democratic Party has had a reasonable corporate-friendly arm? What of the possibility that the regulations, which naturally have been undergoing refinement and development, need to be firmed up but instead have been facing the threat of being gutted their entire lifetime? Or that they never even went far enough in the first place, and fundamentally need to go much further? 

 

Is it even fair to call this "ongoing improvement"? The Crapo bill seems like a straightforward rollback of as much as they could muster support for.

Dude....you’re arguing just to argue.