Why are democrats helping GOP to roll back 2008 banking regulations?

[Ninga]

So many brush fires.....so little time. I just don't get it.

The Senate is preparing to scale back the sweeping banking regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis, with more than a dozen Democrats ready to give Republicans the votes they need to weaken one of President Barack Obama’s largest legislative achievements.
Congress’s appetite for pulling back bank regulations shows the renewed clout of the financial sector in Washington, not just in the GOP but also among Democrats. Eight years after nearly every Senate Democrat backed a sweeping set of new rules for financial firms large and small, the party is now split, with moderates, several of them facing tough midterm election contests, working with the opposing party.
Snip......



https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/10-years-after-financial-crisis-senate-prepares-to-roll-back-banking-rules/2018/03/04/e6115438-1e37-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.0af32426cfc3

[SamKnause]

1. Fuck if I know ???

The whole damn government is fucking insane !!!!!!!

Elizabeth Warren should be in charge of any regulations on the banks and Wall Street.

That will never happen.

The needs of the people come last.

The wants of the corporations come first.

It is fucking sickening.

[Ninga]

3. What is so disheartening is that Sen Mark Warner and Sen Tim Kane are on board.

There are other Dems as well.

[Hortensis]

21. Don't be disheartened, be educated. These "disheartened"

posts always turn out to be foolish, unnecessary angst from lack of information when examined.

Some Democrats are conservatives. That's hardly anything new, certainly nothing to be surprised or disheartened about. In fact, today are there far fewer now than ever before, and the Democratic Party is far more cohesive and unified than ever before.

Don't like it? Don't forget to vote and vote wise, like it matters.

We're in primary season now, btw. Here's Ballotpedia's election calendar, coming up fast, including tomorrow!

https://ballotpedia.org/Elections_calendar

[Ninga]

23. I understand your thinking. I read the article, checked out other sources and then became

disheartened.

Absolutely not necessary to vote in favor of this bill. Period. Why not be disheartened?

[Hortensis]

25. Because gravity is gravity? What's the sense in

leaping up and being disheartened when you come right back down?

On the plus side, every one of our Democratic Party conservatives voted against the Republicans' tax heist bill. NONE voted for that, and that's not nothing. Almost certainly most or all would have been whipped in line if they were Republicans.

[Ninga]

27. It's about doing the right thing not for self interest but for those who need

representation and don't have the $$$ to wink wink at elected officials.

GOP: No way do we support Obama. No way do we let Merrick get a hearing.

Dem: Sure, what the heck, why not vote to relax banking regulations. No biggie.

[Hortensis]

28. Well, moderates cons also think they know what America

needs, and some are even very sincere in their economic ideology. The senate, because members must get elected by appealing to voters across their entire state, tend to average more conservative than representatives in the house who have to appeal to their own district.

And in this case, most of these people are facing reelection, a huge factor in this, especially since the Repugs will likely be able to pass this bill with very little Democratic help, making perhaps sacrificing their seat unnecessary.

We'll see. But in any case, getting disheartened by this non-surprise would be like getting all disheartened because dogs lick their balls. That's just something dogs do.

Fwiw, we don't have to be pleased with them, and I'm not. These guys like their jobs too much for our good, and we really need to do something about that. I just hope enough voters in their districts become displeased with the bill that it backfires on them.

[KPN]

30. Yes. And this is exactly why millennials

flocked to Bernie Sanders. Disenchantment with a system in which representatives serve themselves as opposed to the people. Some complain about millennials' apathy. It is hardly that. It's disenchantment. Who gives a rats ass that not a single one of these Senators voted for the Trump tax cuts when the votes weren't needed in the first place? These self-servers got their cake and are eating it too.

Meanwhile, there are those who say, "Oh well, reality ..." Geezus! As if the millennials and other disenchanted voters/ non-voters are a fantasy!

[QC]

68. Mark Warner has about 74,000,000 reasons to support and defend the bankers.

Tim Kaine has about 1,450,000 reasons.

[uponit7771]

2. Who are these democrats who want to help fuck up the economy ... AGAIN !?!?!

[Ninga]

5. I'm not good at doing DU on a tablet, I will try and post more of the article. It's shocking.

[Exotica]

6. here are the 12 Democratic co-sponsors, more may vote for it

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2155/cosponsors?pageSort=alphaByParty&r=6&q=%7B%22party%22%3A%22Democratic%22%7D

Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
Democratic Party— Alphabetical

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 12/06/2017
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] 12/06/2017
Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Heitkamp, Heidi [D-ND]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Jones, Doug [D-AL] 02/15/2018
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]* 11/16/2017
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]* 11/16/2017
Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]* 11/16/2017

[Ninga]

7. clearly these Sen are using the "re election worries in Districts that went for Trump excuse"

How stupid do they think we are?.

Voters will be swayed by their Senator's vote against big banks? That is their excuse?.

[Exotica]

9. Peters, Carper, Coons, Bennet, Warner, are either not running in 2018 or are not in Trump states

Kaine is running in 2018, but Virginia is more Democratic each election, and he is not in much danger. Deregulation of banks is a RW idea, it is going to end up causing another financial meltdown and hurt the poor and middle class (and almost all our base) most of all.

[Ninga]

11. So disheartening and overwhelming. Just. Bullshit. Nt

[Fresh_Start]

29. carper and coons are delaware....

Many of the major financial institutions have made Delaware their home due to the State’s world-renowned corporation law and pro-business legislation.

Financial services are one of Delaware's major industries

[KPN]

32. +1!

They are bought.

[alarimer]

65. Pretty much the usual suspects.

I think this is a bad bill and will only harm the economy. I think these Dems are naive at best and complicit at worst. I also think no Dem should ever sign on to any Republican bill anymore.

[workinclasszero]

60. No shit

I guess Shrub's destruction of the economy wasn't enough booty for the wall street pirates and their enablers.

If they take down the laws stopping it, a guaranteed recession/depression is coming real soon.

[QC]

69. 2008 was just the dress rehearsal.

The big heist is coming up.

[workinclasszero]

70. How can Americans be so damn stupid?

We have PROOF of what taking the restraints off of Wall St and big banks will do. And it only happened a few years ago!

Its hard to believe the levels of corruption and stupidity that run rampant in this country.

[QC]

71. +1

[spanone]

4. K&R...

[Exotica]

8. Victory in sight for Democrats defying Warren on bank bill

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/05/democrats-warren-bank-regulations-383779

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are poised to pass a bill this week that would relax key banking regulations, steamrolling opposition from outspoken liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who have built their careers calling for tougher oversight of Wall Street.

A core group of moderate Democrats is brushing off an escalating opposition campaign by the Massachusetts senator and other progressives like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, instead joining with GOP colleagues to reverse restrictions on large and small banks that were enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

For the bill’s supporters, the legislation is a chance to show voters that it’s still possible to get things done in an often paralyzed Congress. They include at least 12 Democrats, several of whom face tough reelection campaigns in states that President Donald Trump won in 2016.

"I hope that our bipartisan work can rub off on the rest of Congress so we can break through the partisan gridlock that has plagued Washington for too long," said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, one of the Democrats who has negotiated the bill.

snip

[yurbud]

18. "get THINGS done" is the dumbest fucking talking point in human history.

How hard is it to imagine "things" that are best left undone?

[Bluepinky]

10. This is why we need no corporate funding of elections.

It’s likely that banks fund Democrats as well as Republicans, follow the money.

[Ninga]

20. Citizen's United worst thing ever. Nt

[Wwcd]

31. Pity no one was this concerned when Hillary's platform repeatedly

..called for an end to Citizen's United.

But but.. oligarchs & wall street!!

Instead of echoing the labels laid upon her by those who would be under her watch as our President...they should have taken the time to hear what she wanted for this country.

https://hillaryspeeches.com/2016/07/17/hillary-clinton-calls-for-constitutional-amendment-to-end-citizens-united/

Clinton also announced a new proposal: overturning the Citizens United ruling. She pledged to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United movement in the first 30 days of her presidency. A video of Clinton’s statement is below.

Posting here now since so many clearly missed it at the time or just weren't interested.

Enjoy your day

[KPN]

33. What? What in the world are you talking

or complaining about? How is this relevant at all?

[Wwcd]

40. See post 20 ref.

We had the opportunity to put CU to rest.
Yet here we are..still complaining about it.
Still wishing it wasn't so.

[KPN]

43. Oh, I see now. It's others fault.

Not these particular Senators.

[Wwcd]

44. Did I say that? NO. It appears you are stalking me adversarily.

What does post #20 say?
That was who I directed my post to, as I already told you.

It appears you may have missed that part.
No where did I refer to "just these"Senators as you just accused me of.

I see a pattern here with your posts towards me.
I have no idea why the hostility is necessary.
We differ on opinions.
Please leave it at that.

Thank you.

[KPN]

56. Did I say you said that?

You seem determined here to make the concern voiced in this particular OP about HRC and those who didn't support her. Who exactly are you trying to lay blame on? Geezus! Why in the world are you doing that here? What's to be gained?

Oh, about the stalking part. My post had nothing to do with your username. I could say the same about you in fact, but I'm okay with the fact that some may have strong opinions contrary to my own and choose to voice them. Geesh!

[Ninga]

48. I went door to door getting petitions signed to get a Move To Amend issue on our

Local ballot.
It won.
I voted for Hillary.
So there.

[Wwcd]

50. Lol. "So there" what?

What's your point?
I wasn't directing anything neg at you.

Just sayin. Ya know.

Citizens United was due to be ended under a Pres Hillary.
Every single week I hear someone exclaiming that CU is the biggest issue.
And not once do I hear one single person or MSM spokesperson say, ya know, Hillary's platform was set to end CU.
Not now and DEFINATELY not during the 2016 campaign. Like it was an after thought.

And here we are still agonizing over CU.
Where was all the insistance 2 yrs ago when it could have been brought to a halt.

Dead silence on that subject.

This is more of an observation than anything else.
The same subject keeps coming up. Like it was never considered before.
It was. Repeatedly. And it was ignored.

Too bad cuz here we are. Same bs different day.
Ya know?

Enjoy your evening & thanks for supporting the one person who was prepared to stop CU.

[Upstate One]

12. Most democrats are opposed to the rollback

Only some support it.

[Ninga]

14. my point is that no democrats should support this, let alone enough to pass it! It will pass.

Why is it important for Democrats to vote in favor of the rolling back 2008 banking regs?

[BoneyardDem]

39. The reality of many reps and Senators is that there is a varienty of opinions

holding every single elected official to one standard is unrealistic and that call for purity has cost us dearly already.

Reality politics 101

[appal_jack]

61. You misspelled "important" and "spinelessness," along with "Principled."

Last edited Tue Mar 6, 2018, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Here, let me fix your typos for you:

holding every single elected official to one standard is important and spinelessness has cost us dearly already.

Principled politics 101

-app

[BoneyardDem]

62. I generally don't thank know-it-alls who understood the gist of the comment

but would rather focus on spelling and/or grammar.

Decency 101

[yurbud]

19. the ones that should be primaried out before the kill the party.

[octoberlib]

13. Even Chuck Schumer is opposed to this bill.

[KPN]

34. He hasn't shown that loudly and visibly?

Where are the stories about the Majority Leader pressuring his caucus?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

72. Lol

[jalan48]

15. Wall St and the Big Banks are powerful political forces in our country.

[KPN]

35. You forgot the part about ...

and they have lots of money to help you get re-elected.

[jalan48]

49. Pay to play?

[KPN]

52. No.

Pay to play is more like bribery for service.

[jalan48]

53. True. Why would they vote for it I wonder?

[KPN]

55. Haha. We can only wonder.

[Ninga]

16. There is so much going on that we need an Excell spreadsheet to keep track.

I am so disgusted.

Our letters and emails do not mean dick.

Elected officials count on a short memories of voters.

[Autumn]

54. Is there a positive point to be made about the Dems joining the push to roll back these regulations?

[BoneyardDem]

57. I don't mind the initial critism...it's the constant push of negtivism in multiple posts

I get tired of the knee jerk reactions and the assumption of motivation when none of us know. The go to seems always to be to assume nefarious ulterior motives. It's a good sell, right? It's gets old and is not productive at all. Why not gather facts rather than vomiting hearsay throughout a thread?

I see the constant call for purity when this last year has shown that any DEM is better than any Rep....and anything that helps Reps at this point is counter productive. The lesser of two evils crowd has produced NOTHING good out of this election cycle.

[Autumn]

58. I see it as concern and a call to push our Senators in a different direction on this. The facts were

laid out very well in the OP. There is some animosity in the thread, which isn't necessary. Democrats should always be able to discuss important issues and I consider Democrats joining with Republicans to do away with part of Obama's most important legislation to be an issue that should be discussed. Can you point out what hearsay is in the thread? I must have missed it. My Senator is on that list, he's a shoo in for reelection and there's no reason he should be willing to do that.

[BoneyardDem]

59. maybe you do....I see multi postings as propoganda...repetative and defeatist.

Not necessary to be repeated at least 4 times on the same thread.

[Autumn]

63. I see that by a couple of people too but that's not hearsay, it's people responding to responses

to them. Many of those responses are questioning their motives for attempting a discussion on an important issue.

[yurbud]

17. remember all those times PROGRESSIVES were accused of kneecapping the party?

What the fuck does the corporate wing think this is?

Here's a tip: if you want to get back in power, dial down the corruption for a couple of elections.

If you even care about winning.

You're probably just using this as a calling card for your next lobbying job.

[KPN]

36. Exactly. Run on the principle of people first.

[JI7]

22. Because of the states they come from

[Ninga]

24. I do not believe that the GOP could muster up a grainy black and white TV campaign

ad claiming

" Sen Mark Warner voted no on turning back Wall Street banking regulations"

Not this. No way.

[Ninga]

26. See post #9 for further info. Nt

[KPN]

37. Virginians all favor rolling back Dodd/Frank?

Montanans? I could go.

[KG]

38. bash bash bash

[Wwcd]

42. Bash bash bash..note the all caps (PROGRESSIVES)

Wtf.
Not ALL dems were on board with this as well as some progressives.

The OP is misleading. Without making this distinction, it appears to be a divisive posting.

[Exotica]

45. Far too many Democrats are on board with this RW shit

[Ninga]

47. My OP has illicited some interesting responses. I am surprised at the

ad hominem attacks, some of which are alert worthy.
I did not mean to make this about me by saying I was disheartened.

I meant to draw attention to the fact that certain Democrats will be voting to help the GOP overturn 2008 banking regulations.

[alarimer]

66. I'm glad you did.

We definitely need to be discussing this. It's a bad bill, no matter what crumbs the Rs have thrown to get some Ds on board. It won't be enough to prevent another meltdown.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

67. Thank you, this information needs to be disseminated, apparently we have a DINO former VP nominee

I hope Kaine doesn't harbor any presidential aspirations unless he intends to come clean and becomes a full time puke candidate. I live in Va and he has not earned my vote in November, fuck corporate toadies who chase the money.

[underthematrix]

51. Because we'll control both houses in the next several months BEFORE the election.

[Orsino]

64. Because the same money is trying to buy Dems, too? n/t