Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

You have no evidence that Obama or the Justice Department consulted Hillary on any of this shit. You are full of it on this and you're acting like you're not. If your basis for saying she supports banks is that she accepted money from them for speaking engagements, say so. But your ever-changing Hillary-was-complicit-with-letting-bankers-get-away-with-fraud argument is making you look silly.

I'm not going to call it anything, but ridiculous. Because that's what the grown man-equivalent of being upset you didn't get your way and then going off to pout about it is. I said you should hold whoever gets the nomination to the standard you expect by being involved in whatever way you think is best. Clearly you've decided you'd rather not put in any effort. That's disappointing since the "I'm no longer voting for mediocrity in the hopes that that magically creates a different political system" approach is the political equivalent of:

http://www.helford2000.co.uk/wp-cont...he-ostrich.jpg

TM

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

You don't need a magic wand to rein in the banks. The Fed has authority to establish reserve requirements. If a bank is too big to fail, the Fed can require it to have large enough reserves to ensure that it won't, up to say, 60% (a number I pulled right out of my ass). The President can appoint Fed Commissioners who will impose high enough reserves to make it impossible for banks to hold the global economy hostage and remain profitable. Treasury has the ability to prohibit a bank from writing a credit default swap on any asset it doesn't have a need to hedge.

Bernie Sanders doesn't have a magic wand. He's just the only one running who says that the status quo is no longer acceptable, and abdication of government is not the right answer either.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

How exactly does one "Hold whoever gets the nomination to the standard I expect?" And what basis do you have or saying I'm not going to put in any effort? You're leaping to awfully big conclusions. Would you like a mat?

I intend to do the same things I'm doing now. I intend to write my elected officials. I intend to seek out good candidates. That's exactly what I'm doing now. Where does it say I can't be involved unless I vote for a candidate I believe is unsuitable?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

What possible role does the Secretary of State play in the enforcement of U.S. law against U.S. corporations?

And have you spoken to anyone who works at the SEC and/or DOJ? Why do you think they need the SoS to tell them not to go harder on Goldman and JP Morgan? Given that settlements of this type are very much SOP, why would she need to intervene?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

I'm not sure how much say she has over DOD operations at Gitmo, but sure, she's part of the failure to do the thing the Congress expressly forbade them to use any federal funds to do.

I have no defense of drones.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Hillary was pretty damn busy at Sec of State.

If she had time to fly around the world dealing with wars and treaties and killing bin Laden and stuff while still using her free time to oversee the reconstruction of the financial system, man, we need her!

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Did you know that the whole "ostrich burying its head in the sand" thing is a myth? Speaking of flightless (or mainly flightless birds), today's Daily Dose is "Chicken Strut" by the Meters, one of the first songs that turned me on to the Meters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Eg8zYUFqiE

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

How about, she's better than the alternative. Isn't that the only question?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Who is the alternative?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

A. A lengthy period of time between an original post from the wee hours and an edit always makes me wonder what was said.

B. I don't presume to speak for young Mr. Slothrop, but at this point in the campaign, the alternative to Hilary (or Bernie) is likely to be either Trump or Cruz. I suppose that someone else can come out of the convention with the GOP nomination, but that would be pretty unlikely, no? And I don't know enough about the Libertarian former governor of New Mexico (?) to assess how bad of an alternative he would be to Hilary (or Bernie).

As for others, I get the sense from something SEC said (IIRC, she called him a pro-life libertarian) that he's in favor of keeping the government out of "everything" (loosely defined) other than social issues like abortion and things that the religious right opposes. That seems bad to me.

C. I finally got GGG's nostalgic joke several hours after you pointed out my whiff. What can I say? I am the Dave Kingman of the lawyer-chatting Lawtalkers board.

And I look forward to Sidd@60 - I imagine a cross between Larry David and Uncle Junior.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Just to clarify, Gary Johnson, former governor of NM is a traditional libertarian. In the debate he said that he thinks Jewish bakers should have to bake a Nazi wedding cake, and he's pro choice. So he's not a social conservative or a religious libertarian. He won in a state where Ds outnumber Rs 2 to 1.

Austin Peterson is the pro-life libertarian who does not think one should have to bake a Nazi wedding cake, if one so disagrees. And when I followed him on Twitter he sent me a lengthy direct message and offered to personally call me to earn my support.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Well then he should definitely be President.

TM

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Thanks for the clarification - I apparently conflated the two guys you mentioned. I suppose I could have googled, but what fun is that?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Someone whom Wonk will like less.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

I was snide about how much thought he has ever put into the general election.

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

I like Bernie, but he's a legislative lightweight with grand ideas and zero follow through. He's not Liz Warren, who can get into the nitty and gritty of how she's execute. Ask him how to execute, and he'll tell you it's all about the class struggle.

I think your approach is a recipe for lightweights. Do nothing and it's hard for people to criticize what you've done.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Ah. To be honest, I've probably not put much thought into the general election, either. I think it's unfortunate how the current GOP presidential nomination purity tests reminds me of the Democratic Party between just after Humphrey lost in 1968 through (mostly*) 1992. I think that it's possible that 2020 will be different as a result of this year's process.

*Carter tricked the party's activists into thinking that he was more liberal than he actually was. And one could argue that Gore's campaign in 1988 showed the growing power of the moderates/DLC pro-defense wing of the party.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Oh, c'mon. If you were a bank looking to get an easy deal on criminal conduct, wouldn't you plan to pay the current Secretary of State a large speaking fee a few years from now, after that person retires, in order to secure that deal?

Makes total sense. Let's talk about Vince Foster!

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

So Bernie's central policy plan is reduced to "I'm going to have the Fed require larger reserves"?

Interesting, that it is reduced to that, and that he doesn't actually know that himself.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Has Bernie said he would end drone strikes? I do not think that he has.

But I guess that's okay, in Wonk's view. When he casts his protest vote for Bernie, he will be safe in the knowledge that he isn't voting for anyone who will actually become President and use drone strikes. Problem solved!

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

So, your point is that there are people even crazier than Trump or Cruz in the race? And you actually listen to these people, like voluntarily?

Seriously, how does a fuckhead like that not get booed off the stage? Assuming the stage is not in Berlin and it is after 1944.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

I took it more like the ACLU filing suit to allow the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie. And it's an extreme example designed to offend liberals and those who remember the Holocaust, but I'm sure that many bakers or florists who are fundamentalist Christians or conservative Catholics aren't thrilled with being "forced" to sell cakes or corsages for same sex marriage. Or the white owners of diners and cafeterias in (mostly) the South who weren't thrilled with having to sell tuna salad on rye to blacks.

We can't pick and choose when it's ok for businesses* to discriminate based on the owner's political, religious, or racial/ethnic biases. So the Nazis get to buy their cake from the Jewish bakery regardless of the baker's (justified) anger about it.

*As opposed a church, for example. And yes there are all sorts of wrinkles regarding when a church or church-affiliated entity can refuse to hire or fire someone on religious grounds.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but -- maybe because of the other discussions going on -- I actually read it as "Jewish baNkers should be forced to bake cakes for Nazi weddings."

This is an Emily Latella moment. Never mind.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Still finding great irony in Bernie Sander's campaign turning into a never-ending looped showing of the Citizen's United movie when he gets desperate.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Lloyd Blankfein strikes me as a guy who could whip up a nice red velvet from scratch on short notice. By contrast, that dumb Mick running BoA (Brian Moynihan) would probably burn the Duncan Hines brownies. And trash the kitchen in the process.

#ASSLaw
 

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

As time goes on, these senior-moment mental lapses will provide more and more entertainment for us all.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

You act like the secret Goldman Sachs handshake promise wasn't made based on the promise of Hillary exerting her widely publicized and often acknowledged and significant influence over Obama and his administration on all matters. Try to keep up with world affairs. Sheesh.

TM

Re: does Bernie have Cuban bank accounts?
 

I want to know which gun companies paid Bernie how much for getting that bill through barring suits against gun companies.

But as long as Bernie keeps refusing to release his tax return, we'll never know.

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

No, you're not paying attention. Certain banks will be required to have larger reserves based on some subjective reading of which banks can hold the country hostage. It surely won't be all banks that make the current too-big-to-fail list because that would mean that lending would freeze instantly, businesses would start failing, and tons of jobs would be lost overnight--all at rates we saw in 2008--and the economy would destabilize in an immediate and sharp reversal.

I'm not against breaking up the banks in principle. I don't know how the fuck it gets accomplished, though (even if our legislature could accomplish researching, drafting, and passing such a bipartisan bill*). Since we're not talking about a monopoly like AT&T's when they agreed to break up, I don't think there is a legislative hammer that exists to make it happen. If the argument is that the hammer is the ability to raise reserve requirements, if I'm one of the big banks, I'd be happy to call that bluff. "You want to crash the economy by lowering the hammer because we don't want to break up our bank? Do your worst."

TM

*
http://pipedreamleds.com/images/logo_pipedream.png

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Do you know any black people?

TM

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

Of course, right now, thanks to various exemptions, the big banks generally have lower reserves than community banks. http://www.bankregdata.com/allHMmet.asp?met=ONE

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

Now you're talking like this stuff is actually hard, and like sweeping policy pronouncements can actually have unexpected and undesired consequences.

You incrementalist, you.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

didn't she have a "not forced" in her original post?

Re: #ASSLaw
 

actually almost was my LS, got into GW the last day off wait list.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

or been in any Southern diners?

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Or for that matter any southern people. Rye?

eta: oye vey, lost to Hank

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

Sure. Some of my best friends are black. I'm very open-minded and tolerant.





No to on tuna on rye? Really? Huh.

Re: Hilary had nothing to do with UBS
 

What can I say? I was thinking about what I like to order for lunch in diners.

Re: Arise, ye workers from your slumber.
 

Here is an article that tries its best to help my man Bernie out:

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sander...eDz4p.facebook

The relevant part is:

"There are three ways we can break up the banks.

1. Pass a law putting some sort of cap on the size of the balance sheet of financial companies, usually non-deposit liabilities. Caps, such as Senator Brown’s SAFE Banking Act, are generally proposed around 2 or 3 percent of GDP.

2. Have the council of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), on which the Treasury Secretary serves as chair, declare the largest firms to be too risky and must be broken up (Section 121).

3. Have the Federal Reserve, along with the FDIC, determine that the “living wills” of the biggest banks, which are plans on how they can fail without bringing down the economy, are not credible, and thus must be broken up (Section 165d)."

We already discussed the first. Ain't no chance such a law is passed. We can't pass a law to keep lunatics from getting their hands on guns for Christsakes.

The second sounds pretty good, but see:

"But the Treasury Department isn’t able to make that determination on its own. In fact, ordering a bank to sell off assets and slim down, requires a majority vote of Fed Governors as well as a two-thirds vote of the members of the 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), of which the Treasury Secretary is only one of 10 voting members. And whether or not Bernie Sanders can marshal the support of the other regulators that sit on this board is another matter.

Even if he is able to install regulators sympathetic to his belief that large U.S. banks should be made smaller—which would require Senate approval—he will be unable to change the overall makeup of the Federal Reserve until 2022 at the earliest. That’s because Fed board members serve staggered, 14-year terms. There are currently two vacancies, which Sanders could fill with Senate approval, but he would still need two more sympathetic votes that he’d be unable to garner until at least 2022."

http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/bernie-sanders-big-banks/

Dead in the water.

The third looks like the best option. Given the fact that banks aren't exactly cooperating, I wonder if the author has thought through the words "Have the Federal Reserve [do anything]," because that's really where the flaw lies. They are subject to Congressional oversight, funding, etc., but I'm not familiar with any requirements that subjects them to the will of the President. Maybe the President can affect change with his appointment of the Chair (which is subject to Congressional approval--and we all know how that goes).

In any case, I can respect the fact that Bernie wants to accomplish this and I definitely respect people wanting to vote for him because it is important to him. But the fact that he has put almost no thought into it (or has and doesn't want to admit that it seems almost hopeless) is a legitimate and significant criticism.

TM