General Discussion

kpete

(71,980 posts) Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:06 AM Dec 2014

KRUGMAN: Wall Street’s Revenge (Wall Street is giving mainly to Republicans for a reason.)

Wall Street’s Revenge
Dodd-Frank Damaged in the Budget Bill
DEC. 14, 2014
Paul Krugman

The Masters of the Universe, it turns out, are a bunch of whiners. But they’re whiners with war chests, and now they’ve bought themselves a Congress.[/i

]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

............ The incoming congressional majority has revealed its agenda — and it’s all about rewarding bad actors.

..........

But what Congress did is still outrageous — and both sides of the ideological divide should agree. After all, even if you believe (in defiance of the lessons of history) that financial institutions can be trusted to police themselves, even if you believe the grotesquely false narrative that bleeding-heart liberals caused the financial crisis by pressuring banks to lend to poor people, especially minority borrowers, you should be against letting Wall Street play games with government-guaranteed funds. What just went down isn’t about free-market economics; it’s pure crony capitalism.

.............

And sure enough, Citigroup literally wrote the deregulation language that was inserted into the funding bill.

Again, in itself last week’s action wasn’t decisive. But it was clearly the first skirmish in a war to roll back much if not all of the financial reform. And if you want to know who stands where in this coming war, follow the money: Wall Street is giving mainly to Republicans for a reason.

................

So the people who brought the economy to its knees are seeking the chance to do it all over again. And they have powerful allies, who are doing all they can to make Wall Street’s dream come true.

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

KRUGMAN: Wall Street’s Revenge (Wall Street is giving mainly to Republicans for a reason.) (Original Post) kpete Dec 2014 OP

Unfortunately it wasn't just republicans who fell in line, there were Democrats also still_one Dec 2014 #1

Do not damn them too fast. DetlefK Dec 2014 #2

You had a lot of strange bedfellows in that list. There were republicans who also voted against it still_one Dec 2014 #3

Conservatives didn't think the "revenge" against Obama's immigration executive order was enough. w4rma Dec 2014 #14

Yeah.. because the President Immigration Reform got Funded in that Bill. Notice Ted Cruz and Mike Cha Dec 2014 #16

And yet they're puzzled that voter turnout is diminishing? nt procon Dec 2014 #4

It's like rooting for a perpetually losing abelenkpe Dec 2014 #5

Yes the only difference being, we "know" the team deliberately aids the winning team. Bandit Dec 2014 #8

Neoliberals comprise about 1/3 to 1/4 of Democrats. They will always help the GOP when they have a w4rma Dec 2014 #15

link tk2kewl Dec 2014 #6

wall street is a casino + the house ALWAYS wins. pansypoo53219 Dec 2014 #7

One big difference hifiguy Dec 2014 #12

The banksters ascended to crimes against humanity hifiguy Dec 2014 #9

And there was this part Andy823 Dec 2014 #10

K&R. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #11

This news has already been reported fadedrose Dec 2014 #13

still_one

(92,114 posts)

1. Unfortunately it wasn't just republicans who fell in line, there were Democrats also

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:11 AM

Dec 2014

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)

2. Do not damn them too fast.

Reply to still_one (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:24 AM

Dec 2014

This was a lame-duck Congress and the Democrats had to get the vote on something NOW, as long as they had some leeway.

Once the Republicans control Senate and House, they will continue implementing their doctrine, but the Democrats can pester them with populism and Obama can issue vetoes.
The liberal wing of the Democrats will grow in strength, because the Republicans simply won't do anything except helping Big Money.

AND whatever goodies the Republicans bring to Wall Street until 2016, if the liberal wing of the Democrats grows enough until then, it might be possible to undo that.

still_one

(92,114 posts)

3. You had a lot of strange bedfellows in that list. There were republicans who also voted against it

Reply to DetlefK (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:26 AM

Dec 2014

w4rma

(31,700 posts)

14. Conservatives didn't think the "revenge" against Obama's immigration executive order was enough.

Reply to still_one (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:24 PM

Dec 2014

Only a very small number of them even brought up the watering down of Dodd-Frank.

Cha

(297,029 posts)

16. Yeah.. because the President Immigration Reform got Funded in that Bill. Notice Ted Cruz and Mike

Reply to still_one (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:55 AM

Dec 2014

Lee were against it.

procon

(15,805 posts)

4. And yet they're puzzled that voter turnout is diminishing? nt

Reply to still_one (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 11:28 AM

Dec 2014

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)

5. It's like rooting for a perpetually losing

Reply to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 12:02 PM

Dec 2014

Team. After a while fans just give up.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)

8. Yes the only difference being, we "know" the team deliberately aids the winning team.

Reply to abelenkpe (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:59 PM

Dec 2014

It would be one thing if our team played as hard as they could to win. It has become apparent to millions and millions that "our" team is playing equally hard for the opposing team. I am finding it very difficult to justify ever voting again...You may say Supreme Court Justices, but do you actually believe any Democrat will get their choice approved by a Republican Senate? Ain't going to happen. If we don't choose a very Conservative Justice we won't get any approved..

w4rma

(31,700 posts)

15. Neoliberals comprise about 1/3 to 1/4 of Democrats. They will always help the GOP when they have a

Reply to Bandit (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:26 PM

Dec 2014

selfish reason to do so.

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)

6. link

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:18 PM

Dec 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-damaged-by-the-budget-bill.html?_r=0

pansypoo53219

(20,968 posts)

7. wall street is a casino + the house ALWAYS wins.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 01:54 PM

Dec 2014

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)

12. One big difference

Reply to pansypoo53219 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:08 PM

Dec 2014

In a casino the mark spends his own money and absorbs his own losses.

In Wall Street the gamblers play with the public's money, keep any winnings from their ill-gotten gains for themselves and stick the public with the tab for their losses. The Mafia couldn't dream up anything more perfectly corrupt than that.

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)

9. The banksters ascended to crimes against humanity

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:06 PM

Dec 2014

quite a while ago. They seem determined to gild their own poisonous lily. May they one day reap the hurricane they have seeded.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)

10. And there was this part

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:06 PM

Dec 2014

"Now, this isn’t the death of financial reform. In fact, I’d argue that regulating insured banks is something of a sideshow, since the 2008 crisis was brought on mainly by uninsured institutions like Lehman Brothers and A.I.G. The really important parts of reform involve consumer protection and the enhanced ability of regulators both to police the actions of “systemically important” financial institutions (which needn’t be conventional banks) and to take such institutions into receivership at times of crisis."

I totally did not like the fact that Citi group got their way in the Omnibus, but as Krugman said it's not the death of financial reform. I also agree with him that this is just the first skirmish, there will be more to come, it's jut not the end of the world as some here on DU seem to think. I do think Warren can find more in the democratic party to follow here in taking on the financial institutions, and I think she may be able to pull some from the other side over also, plus I am sure there will be a lot of vetoes going on at the WH.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

11. K&R.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:06 PM

Dec 2014

We are going to have to rely on volunteers in the next elections. We had better get organized to do that.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)

13. This news has already been reported

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Dec 15, 2014, 02:13 PM

Dec 2014

in the Senate by Elizabeth Warren. I can't get over how few programs did not play her Citigroup speech. I saw it only on Chuck Todd's MTP, and only a part of it.

The most worrisome thing she said was that the new Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Obama is from Citigroup.

Broke my heart. I had so much faith in his not being corrupted. Should have known better. He is a politician.

Reply to this discussion