2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT edit board says Hillary Clinton's Wall Street plan is stronger than Bernie Sanders'
Jennifer Epstein ?@jeneps 1h1 hour agoNYT edit board says Hillary Clinton's Wall Street plan is stronger than Bernie Sanders' http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/opinion/a-better-way-to-control-the-banks.html
_)___In his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bernie Sanders has made breaking up the banks a central plank of his economic agenda. The idea has merit. Smaller, more manageable banks would allow for better internal controls over dubious ethical behavior and better regulatory oversight of risky business practices that seem entrenched despite efforts at reform.
But it is also a distraction. It offers a distant and politically uncertain solution to the problem of too-big-to-fail banks that the incremental Dodd-Frank financial reforms of 2010 have already begun to address. In the process, it plays into the hands of Republican critics of Dodd-Frank, who want to repeal the post-crisis reforms and block any further regulation. Thats why Hillary Clintons plan to defend and build on Dodd-Frank makes more sense at this time.
What gets lost in the discussion is that Dodd-Frank, properly executed, would help to create the conditions for breaking up large and complex banks. Thats because the banks would face rising regulatory costs, which means they might well be worth more to investors if taken apart. Essentially, effective regulation and market forces would work together to make banks smaller and safer.
Mrs. Clinton has vowed to fight for higher capital requirements, which can be accomplished without new legislation if regulators willing to impose them are appointed. Of course, that would not be as blunt a way to shrink the banks as simply requiring them to stop their riskiest trading. Still, it would not preclude breaking up the banks at some later date. And it would make the journey from here to there a safer one.
As campaign slogans go, more capital does not have the same ring to it as break up the banks. But both are paths to the same destination. Mr. Sanders has the right goal. Mrs. Clinton has the right means.
read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/opinion/a-better-way-to-control-the-banks.html?_r=0
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....because she lies.
That's it, isn't it? And they still don't get it.
SunSeeker
(51,578 posts)He was all rah rah for Vermont single payer saying it would be the model for the nation and helped get the law passed with his enthusiastic support. But when it came time to pass the 12% tax to pay for it, he clammed up, leaving single payer advocates twisting in the wind without his voice.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)thinks her plan is better? No way
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)They have disagreed with her on minimum wage, immigration, and the transcripts.
SunSeeker
(51,578 posts)think
(11,641 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)lol
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)That isn't what's happening.
It's being weakened by revolving-door regulators.
Voting for Hillary Clinton means voting for more revolving-door regulators.
think
(11,641 posts)Bold for emphasis added:
U.S. banks moved billions of dollars in trades beyond Washingtons reach
By Charles Levinson - Filed Aug. 21, 2015, 2 p.m. GMT
~Snip~
In 2009, soon after Gensler took the job, Congress was hashing out the Dodd-Frank bill. A powerful Republican congressman, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, put forth an amendment that would keep banks overseas operations outside the new rules. Alarmed, the Democratic co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Barney Frank, asked Gensler to craft a counter-proposal.
Gensler and his staff tucked a 17-word insert into a 228-page amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill. The addition seemed to assure banks that the new derivatives rules wouldnt apply to their overseas trading operations. Bachus backed off. But the insert was craftily worded to leave wiggle room. If those activities have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States, then the rules would apply, Genslers addition read.
One year later, at a late 2010 meeting of the CFTCs board, one of Genslers legal aides declared that the passage in fact gave the regulator worldwide reach over U.S. banks trading operations.
A coalition of 13 global banks banded together to fight the clause. They hired Edward J. Rosen, a derivatives lawyer with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, to lead the effort.
?v=562619050116
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-swaps/
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Hillary Clinton isn't going to say, "I plan to appoint regulators given huge bonuses by their Wall St firms to work in government and weaken regulations." But that's what she'll do.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)NYT is the establishment paper based in the financial capital of the world.
I can't believe in progressive forum someone wants to convince us the candidate who earned millions in speaking fees (hundreds if we include her husband) and is getting millions of dollars in campaign funds, is going to be tougher on wall-street than the candidate who has being running against wall-street for decades.
This article and others I have seen in the main stream media should tell you how much corporate media respects the intellect of the american people.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Fortunately for Clinton, people have short memories.
Her vows will be conveniently forgotten if she gets elected.
revbones
(3,660 posts)So, even as Hillary says, if it happens again she'll then have the tools to break them up IF they pose a systemic risk. Not prevent a collapse like Glass-Stegall would.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Well now maybe we can guess what Goldman will want for their money spent.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)This editorial is premised on the idea that Hillary Clinton will appoint tougher regulators than Barack Obama did. As tough as Bernie Sanders would appoint.
I doubt that.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Not happening.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Autumn
(45,116 posts)bigtree
(85,999 posts)Autumn
(45,116 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Even Captain Obvious would have trouble not laughing his ass off, if he had to say those words.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)They brought us the Iraq War?
They ARE the 1%?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From before he had passed away from his great reward:
By Jim Naureckas
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, Dec. 10, 2015
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak (12/9/15) recounted a startling moment in the Courts oral arguments over the University of Texas affirmative action plan:
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.
I dont think it stands to reason that its a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible, he added.
But part of the reason that the remark drew muted gasps, surely, is that thats not what Scalia saidhe didnt say minority students with inferior academic credentials would be better off at worse schools, he said African-Americans in general would. Heres the whole passage:
There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a lessa slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country dont come from schools like the University of Texas . They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that theyre being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
He goes on to suggest that really competent blacks would be better off if they were admitted to lesser schools:
Im just not impressed by the fact that that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less. And I dont think it stands to reason that its a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
This is not a person talking about a subset of blacks with a particular kind of educational background; taking his words at face value,
this is a person asserting that African-Americans as a whole belong in lesser schools that are not too fast for them. (Or that there are those who contend that that is the case, if you want to give Scalia credit for that circumlocution.)
[font color="red"]The fact that a Supreme Court justice justifies eliminating affirmative action on the basis of openly racist views ought to be big news. By sugarcoating what Scalia actually said, the New York Times disguises that newsmaking the ethnic cleansing of Americas top schools a more palatable possibility. Perhaps that shouldnt make me gasp.[/font color]
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Margaret Sullivan: public@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes or @Sulliview). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
SOURCE: http://fair.org/home/nyt-rewrites-scalia-to-make-him-sound-less-racist/
Not very credible endorsement, based on their record.