2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's plan for regulating Wall Street
"Cut it out guys!"
Oh and this is what passes for "masterful" debate winning in punditocracy world.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)BainsBane
(53,078 posts)You would bother to inform yourself at least a little bit on the proposed policies.
The plan would stiffen penalties for financial fraud and require financial executives to personally foot the bill for settlements and fines levied against their companies. Clinton would also curtail the use of so-called "deferred prosecution agreements," in which the Department of Justice agrees to call off its investigation if a company makes important operational changes -- effectively letting wrongdoers off the hook. No major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for financial crime under President Barack Obama and his two attorneys general, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
But the bulk of Clinton's plan focuses on closing holes that bank lobbyists have drilled into the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform package in the years since its original conception. The bill originally banned federal subsidies for risky derivatives trading, but Congress reinstated the Wall Street perks late last year as part of a government funding bill. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attempted to bring down the funding bill over the subsidies, Obama and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon personally lobbied lawmakers to approve the provision. The plan Clinton announced Thursday would repeal the perks, returning to the original intent of Dodd-Frank.
Clinton would also beef up Dodd-Frank's Volcker Rule, which bans banks that accept federal perks from conducting securities trades for their own accounts. Such speculative bets can be wildly profitable for banks in the short term, while generating tremendous long-term risks that taxpayers can be forced to pay for in a crisis. Dodd-Frank includes a loophole allowing big bank conglomerates to devote a significant amount of money to ownership stakes in hedge funds and private equity projects. Clinton would close that loophole.
The plan also includes a tax on high-frequency trading, a risky practice in which computers process thousands of trades by the microsecond to cash in on small price movements in stocks and other securities. High-frequency trading was widely blamed for the so-called "Flash Crash" of 2010, when stocks mysteriously plummeted, only to recover within a few hours.
Clinton would also remove key regulators at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission from the congressional appropriations process -- a move that would prevent Republicans from holding agency funding hostage to their demands for deregulation.
The Clinton plan's most direct nod to Warren, who largely sets the financial reform agenda for the Democratic Party's base, is an endorsement of the senator's Truth In Settlements Act. Warren's bill would require far more detailed public disclosures about the total effect of corporate settlements on company bottom lines. While government regulators often crow about seemingly huge payouts from banks, accounting details and tax breaks often sharply limit the actual impact on big firms. The Truth in Settlements Act would require a full public accounting of the effects of each settlement. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), but has received little support from the GOP majority.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-wall-street_56168defe4b0dbb8000d5e90
Sanders website still doesn't have a detailed policy statement but rather a goal: "break up the big banks" and a summary of his past positions. Does he have a policy paper on the subject?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)She would would have been a little more forceful than just "cut it out" when she went to them before they tanked the economy. And there's also a perfectly good piece of regulation that both she AND the financial industry DO NOT WANT reinstated that worked to prevent the financial industry collapse for 60 plus years.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It's probably just another sniper fire moment...
She was already campaigning for the nomination then, did she say anything like 'cut it out' in any of her speeches?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Perhaps it will save you some embarrassment.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Saying Sander whole thought on regulating Wall Street is to look at them and yell "enough!!!"
This is what passes for political thought in an echo chamber. I know you won't do it but I suggest you read the thought of Krugman that is currently in this forum. Warning, it will take more time and thought than your op. It will still be educational.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)That's what passes for political thought in the echo chamber of some HRC supporters.
Oh yeah...do you think that naming the Iranians as enemies was one of her masterful points in her flawless debate performance?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Or however you like to spell it. But if someone wants to put that argument forward I'm sure they could make a decent case. Not sure why you don't think experience isn't important when applying for a job. Very strange. Yet you think the op is intelligent political discourse. Guess that is why.
Seems someone posted some educational material for you just above this thread. Dont be afraid to read people like Krugman.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Carrying water for Wall Street? Nah.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Krugman might be a little advanced.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)As for Krugman i agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. Same as with Hillary. And this issue is an example of where I don't. Her refusal to commit to reinstatement of Glass-Steagall just shows that we can't trust her to be more forceful than "cut it out." It's a specific regulation that helped curb financial industry abuse for 60 years and she immediately takes it off the table and expects us to buy her broad policy statements. No sale.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I, too, find that very disturbing. Since her husband signed the bill killing Glass-Steagall, perhaps she is just trying to avoid criticizing him.
Even if that is the case, Hillary just isn't believable to me on any meaningful economic reform. With her it will be baby steps at best.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Nitram
(22,913 posts)Maybe that's why Clinton's plan has so much more substance than Bernie's "break up the banks."
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Praised by not one but two Nobel economists; Stiglitz and Krugman. Bernie has a non-existent plan.
frylock
(34,825 posts)And Glass-Steagall reinstatement is still off the table.
frylock
(34,825 posts)What happened here? Why didn't things get done?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And moderates believe in watered down, non controversial, non solutions. Or better yet, handing the GOP everything they want for nothing in return. I don't believe the USA can take another 'moderate' Democrat.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I don't think we're allowed to reference anything that Hillary says outside of a 48 hour window.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)A stunning triumph!