O'Malley on "feckless" Wall Street regulation

[mmonk]

“Our Democratic Party has come up short – people expected us to actually put some common sense regulations in place,” he said, discussing Wall Street reform in a new MSNBC interview. “There are more repercussions for a person being a chronic speeding violator in our country,” he said, “than there is for a big bank being a chronic violator of SEC rules.”


O’Malley argued Obama’s appointees to the SEC and Justice Department have been too soft on the financial industry. “I think that the SEC has been pretty feckless when it comes to reigning in reckless behavior on Wall Street,” he said, adding, “We can’t expect Wall Street to police itself – that’s why we have a federal government.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eying-2016-martin-omalley-criticizes-feckless-wall-street-regulation

[tularetom]

1. With talk like that I doubt if this guy has any hope of being nominated

but he hit the nail squarely on the head.

Actually, "feckless" is sort of a euphemism for "criminally complicit", IMO, but otherwise he's right on target with that statement.

[newfie11]

2. Feckless is also popular with Irish Grandma's

[tularetom]

49. I'm 73 years old and I've been married for 52 years

So I'm pretty much feckless myself.

[merrily]

51. Studies show more people wish they will be married for 52 years than wish for feck.

So, don't feel bad about being feckless. You're still the envy of almost all sane people.

[newfie11]

53. Lol

[snooper2]

25. All we have to do is start sending him money when he announces!

Like my sig- NO BUSH NO CLINTON!

[rurallib]

3. the more I hear of this guy the more I like

Bernie is choice #1 so far, but I like what O'Malley is saying.

[deutsey]

6. Same here

I've liked Bernie for years, ever since he was first elected (I don't live in Vermont, but I contributed to his campaign as I did to Wellstone's when he first ran).

While I love Bernie, I don't know how much of a chance he has. I would vote for him, but if Dean could be made to look like a screaming lunatic, just imagine what our "liberal" media would make Bernie appear to be.

Unfortunately, ever since JFK vs Nixon TV has played a crucial role in selling the presidential candidate and I don't know how well Bernie would come across, especially in today's corporate media landscape. Not that O'Malley is immune from being portrayed as appearing unpresidential, I think he at least starts off with a better chance of establishing a presidential appearance than Bernie.

Depresses me to read what I'm saying here, but that seems to be the way it is, imo.

[mmonk]

9. Me too.

[el_bryanto]

4. He's right there.

I'm rereading "Chasing Goldman" and it's very good about what should have happened in the wake of the 2008 crash and what didn't. There are any number of things that could have been done to create a more equitable society.

Bryant

[merrily]

5. Does he agree with Warren, or is he copying from Warren, or both?

If it means it, great. If he's simply using a strategy based on Warren's popularity with the left--something Democrats seem to see as important in a Democratic primary (and only in a Democratic primary), not so great.

I will reserve an opinion until I've seen and heard more from O'Malley. Meanwhile, the more voices in the primary to Hillary's left, the better. In my view, anyway.

[mmonk]

8. Agrees in that area and a few others.

[merrily]

11. Did he start talking about Wall street regulation before or after Warren did?

[jeff47]

15. I wouldn't expect the Governor of MD to make a lot of statements on Wall Street regulation

Just like I wouldn't expect the governor of FL to make a lot of statements about snow removal, or the governor of OR to make statements about hurricane preparedness.

[merrily]

16. The issue is not what either you or I would expect of O'Malley

mmonk made a flat statement to me, in response to a specific question that I asked in Reply 5. While the question in Reply 5 was originally at least partly rhetorical, mmonk did reply to it (Reply 8) with a flat statement of fact. I assume mmonk had a basis for making that flat statement. Hence my additional question to mmonk in Reply 11.

Unless you know what mmonk had in mind when mmonk replied to my post #5, I am not sure why you replied to my question to mmonk?

[jeff47]

17. Sure it is. You are expecting either

1) He's jumping on the bandwagon after Warren "cleared the path"
2) He actually wants stronger regulation.

It appears you are looking for previous statements to sort out between #1 or #2. But in his previous political roles, Wall Street regulation would not be a common subject. Thus it's not a good way to separate the two.

Instead, we'll have to look at other parts of his record that do apply for a Governor not from NY, and see what "pro-business" or "pro-regulation" things he did.

[merrily]

18. Please let mmonk tell me what mmonk's post #8 meant. Also, please do not assume

what I expected or what I was looking for in my question in Reply 11 to mmonk. I don't think you can read mmonk's mind and I know you did not read mine correctly.

[jeff47]

19. Feel free to explain why the timing of O'Malley's statements would be otherwise relevant. (nt)

[merrily]

20. You interjected yourself into a question I asked mmonk and somehow that means I owe you an

explanation? As it is, I've made two posts to you that I should not have had to make.

Pass.

[jeff47]

21. No, you don't owe me anything.

But if you want to show what I'm missing about the timing of his statements, I'd be happy to find out what I'm missing.

[merrily]

22. You've now ignored 3 requests.

[jeff47]

24. And I've also responded to 3 attacks on me.

In post 15, you attacked me for believing that a public discussion is actually public, instead of a private chat between two people.

In post 17, you again insist that I'm inserting myself into a private conversation, and that I have no right to express my confusion at the usefulness of the question.

In post 19, you decided I was demanding an answer from you, instead of trying to actually get a response to my question.

I don't know everything. There may be something useful I am missing about the timing of his regulation statements. Since you asked the question, you appear to know of something useful about them. Or perhaps it's just curiosity.

[merrily]

28. If you see "Please let mmonk respond" as an attack on you, I can't help that. There was not a single

attack on you, not one.

I'm done responding to you about this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. IMO, You missed nothing ...

Governors face, and therefore, speak to different issues, than Senators ... just as, Senators face different issues from Governors, so they will have very different records, regarding addressing issues. For one, a Governor's primary concern is the state of his/her state; whereas, a Senators have primarily a national focus ... Governors are concerned with the laws of their state; whereas, Senators are concerned with Federal laws, the former does not/cannot affect the latter.

[merrily]

29. His claim was that he had not missed my intent/meaning. He did.

[jeff47]

30. Shhh! This is a private conversation that no one may interrupt!

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. LOL ...

I fully expected that!

[mmonk]

41. Sorry about my brief absense. Have been out chasing "alligators" (problems I'm dealing with).

Here is a link that will tell you his positions on Wall Street, other issues, and record.

http://martinomalley.com/

[merrily]

50. No apologies necessary. I didn't expect instant service. Thanks for the link.

I appreciate it.

[rhett o rick]

7. Pres Obama's handling of Wall Street can be for one of two reasons.

He doesn't think Wall Street should be regulated more than they are now or he doesn't have the power to make the needed changes. Most of us live in a certain level of denial. We think that the president and Congress actually run the country but we must admit that Big Money has a lot of power. The banksters proved in 2008 that they can threaten to shut down the economy and there is nothing our government can do to stop them. They were satisfied with a trillion dollars (or few trillion, it's not like we know the true cost) but who is to say what they will "need" next time to "save" the economy. Personally I think that Pres Obama wants stronger controls but hasn't the power to make it happen.

[Rex]

12. I agree, I've always thought that too.

Big Biz controls this country, Congress works for them and the POTUS doesn't have the power to change Wall Street. The non-governing elites control the governing elites.

[deutsey]

31. "The masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools" Bob Dylan

In my opinion, there were only two times in modern US history when the governing elites posed a significant challenge to the non-governing elites: during FDR's New Deal and during the rebellions of the '60s through the mid-'70s.

Beginning with the right-wing Reaction beginning in the mid-'70s (which really took hold in the '80s under Reagan), the non-governing elites have diligently rigged the political/economic/legal systems to ensure that what happened during those two eras will never happen again.

[rhett o rick]

35. Very well put. The "non-governing" elites are running the show. nm

[Rex]

48. Our modern day bard knows what he is talking about.

Yep, the game is rigged and we've even heard it from the horses mouth over the years. Disaster capitalism is here to stay.

[RiverLover]

54. Big Biz IS our congress now. They buy campaigns & staff congress afterwards

A Quiet Corporate Coup - Instead of lobbying, lobbyists are now becoming congressional staff
(Jim Hightower)
http://otherwords.org/a-quiet-corporate-coup-on-capitol-hill/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026449818

[merrily]

13. I can't read Obama's mind, but this thread is about O'Malley, isn't it?

As for who controls whom, we can't do anything about Jamie Dimon unless we have the money to buy one hell of a lot of the stock of his bank. The only ones we can even try to impact are politicians--and laws favoring banks aren't passing themselves.

[rhett o rick]

23. Yes this thread's about O'Malley and he claims that the Obama Admin's handling of Banksters

is "feckless". I am pointing out that big talk about controlling the banksters is rhetoric. Candidate Obama made all kinds of promises that didn't materialize. Why should we believe O'Malley? I am not saying we are going to have a choice. Most likely we will end up with Wall Street Puppet #1 vs. Wall Street Puppet #2.

[merrily]

27. On my reading, O'Malley spread the blame around to Congress, the President and the regulators.

Our Democratic Party has come up short – people expected us to actually put some common sense regulations in place,” he said, discussing Wall Street reform in a new MSNBC interview. “There are more repercussions for a person being a chronic speeding violator in our country,” he said, “than there is for a big bank being a chronic violator of SEC rules.”


O’Malley argued Obama’s appointees to the SEC and Justice Department have been too soft on the financial industry. “I think that the SEC has been pretty feckless when it comes to reigning in reckless behavior on Wall Street,” he said, adding, “We can’t expect Wall Street to police itself – that’s why we have a federal government.”

The first paragraph quoted above cites the party as a whole. He says that we expected certain things when we elected Democrats to Congress and the Oval Office after the collapse of 2008 and I think that's right: we did. And, while he does talk about putting common sense regulations in place, legislation has to precede regulations, so I assume he was talking about Congress as well as drafters of regulations and those charged with enforcing regulations.

I did not see this as singling out Obama. As to the first paragraph quoted above, I cannot disagree with him. As to Obama's appointees, I can't say I've been a fan of many of them at any level.

But, I did not read the quote above as singling out Obama.

[rhett o rick]

34. As you pointed out the OP is about O'Malley not Obama. O'Malley

is running for President and therefore when he says something like "O’Malley argued Obama’s appointees to the SEC and Justice Department have been too soft on the financial industry." I read that as saying that as President he would do better. I am saying that is easy for him to say. It's easy for him to criticize Pres Obama's choice of appointees. If elected I think O'Malley would find that he might not get to do better with his appointments. As we learned with Pres Obama, talk is cheap.

[merrily]

36. If a hopeful criticizes Obama's appointees (as do I) and gets elected and appoints the same kind,

then he or she will get flack for it, as did Obama. I don't recall Obama promising to not to appoint industry insiders and/or Clintonites. I just assumed he was going to do better. I don't assume Hillary will do better. I have no clue yet about O'Malley.

I am not disputing that the wealthy do control everything, including whom a President appoints. I am not sure how they do that, but I am not disputing it.

What I will say about that, though, is: if it is true that Presidents and members of Congress have no real choices, we may as well stop voting and stop posting about politics, unless we plan to be billionaires in the foreseeable future.

[rhett o rick]

37. I don't disagree with your last statement. I guess it is important for

us to find out.

I think the Elite Theory has a lot of merit. I think we need to find some Elitists that recognize our humanity if not just recognize the dangers to themselves if we slide into tyranny.

[merrily]

40. I'm not sure how we'd find out.

Surely, most of us know that the wealthy have infinitely more influence with politicians than we do. But, a President, powerless to choose his own nominees? Even right after his first huge win, with his own party in control of both houses?

If something that significant is literally true, knowing human nature, I am very surprised it's never come out in a book, a deathbed confession, whistleblowing, something said while coming out from under anesthetic, etc.

As for Obama in particular, though, his tendency to hire Clintonites was pointed out by a moderator in one of the debates. It was the subject of one of the more famous moments. IIRC--and no guaranty that I do--the moderator asked something like how Obama was promising change when he was hiring Clintonites. Hillary made a comment along the lines that she would like to know that, too, whereupon Obama replied that he planned or hoped to have her working for him, too.

I am not saying that Clintonites are the only problem with his appointments. But, if the rich were dictating his choices, they must have started before he won the primary.

[rhett o rick]

42. Michael J. Blennon has written an interesting book, "National Security and Double Government"

that provides a theory.

I don't think the "influence" is necessarily blatant. But let's say that after getting elected as president he has a meeting with the heads of the NSA and CIA and they explain to him how dangerous it would be to the national security if he were to make drastic changes to the leaderships of these organizations. They have systems in place and it would look terrible if the President made changes and we experienced a terrible disaster. I see something similar happening with regard to the economy. Threats? Maybe. Risky to try to fix.

[merrily]

45. O'Malley was talking about banks and Wall Street, not a terrorist attack, though.

Moreover, Blennon's theory sounds a lot like a much less punchy version of the theory that the CIA shows a video of the Kennedy assassination to every new President, then asks, "Any questions?" And that supposedly explains every action of every President since the assassination. Every Democratic President, anyway. The same actions from a Republican are simply because they are evil to begin with.

Neither the video theory nor Blennon's explains the points I raised in my prior post about Obama's statements during the primary or why we never hear about anything like this in a deathbed confession, a book, etc. Besides, who heads the CIA and the NSA is up to the new POTUS.

Here's another kind of theory about "no drastic changes."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6298370

[rhett o rick]

46. I think the same pressure applies related to banks as to security.

I don't believe it's as blatant as showing the film of JFK assassination but less subtle. The NSA/CIA or Banksters could make a very good case that they have systems in place to prevent a national disaster. How can a president fight that? The NSA/CIA didn't prevent the 911 disaster but were never held accountable. In fact they got less oversight, more power and more funding. The economic system in place didn't prevent the 2008 banking crisis. Who was held accountable? Why no regulations to prevent future crisis's?

[Thespian2]

10. O'Malley

appears to be absolutely correct in his placement of the blame for America's unsound economy on the appointees to the SEC and (lack of) Justice Department.

[rhett o rick]

38. Yes I agree. The question is whether he would, if elected President, be able to do better. nm

[Thespian2]

43. Some one better

must be found. The Washington Clusterfuck must be untangled.

[rhett o rick]

44. Yes I agree. My disappointment with Obama is that either he outright lied to us or

he doesn't have the power to make the changes needed. I am hoping on the former but believe the later.

[bigtree]

14. more

Lis Smith ?@Lis_Smith (Democratic communicator and consultant. Team O'Malley. Former Director of Rapid Response, Obama for America.)

"The friendly crowd applauded [@GovernorOMalley] big, especially on a line about regulating Wall Street.” http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/10/martin-omalley-cooneys-tavern-beaverdale/25562735/ …


Peter Hamby @PeterHambyCNN · 22m 22 minutes ago
emails from Iowa Dem activists who saw Martin O'Malley at Cooney's in Beaverdale last night: He was "on fire." "Huge crowd." "Love him."

[mmonk]

47. +1

Thanks, always.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Wow ... "We Want/Demand a Vigorious Primary!" ...

(Presumed) Candidate 1: No good! She doesn't talk about economics in the way we want to hear it ... even when she does, she hasn't!

(Presumed) Candidate 2: No Good! He IS talking about economics the way we what to hear it; but, we don't believe him!

(with a smattering of, it doesn't matter because the banksters rule the world)

Why bother?

But then ... maybe that's the point!

[kelliekat44]

39. At least some here have a grasp of reality. O'Malley is running for office. Everything he says

must be measured in that light. If the plan by any Dem candidate is to bad-mouth the President, the Dem party, and to run away from reality, we will get the same results in the national election that we got in the last of-year election...the GOP will win. Dems must learn to run on positive accomplishments and expose the GOP for who they really are. Surely we have several things about which we are unhappy but harping on those will not help us. If we are try to out smear the President and his appointments we are just as likely to be working for the GOP.

[bigtree]

52. he actually praised the President

Lis Smith @Lis_Smith
Lots of love for @BarackObama's leadership from @GovernorOMalley 2nite in Beaverdale: "we have to continue to build on the progress he made"


Iowa Press @IowaPress · 11h 11 hours ago
"If you hate the POTUS more than you hate the Ayatollah, then you probably shouldn't be in the government of the U.S." @GovernorOMalley