Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: We need a new Democratic Party [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)27. I think we should focus on 2016.
You're Welcome.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383150
Which Republican will Warren face in 2016?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022396604
"Bankers dine regularly with the President, whose staff and cabinet are filled with other bankers on loan from Wall Street. They are treated with fawning and obsequious respect by both parties in Congress. "
Thank God for Elizabeth Warren. People are finally taking Wall Street reform seriously.
The Wall Street reform law would have a significant impact if implementation is sped up.
Think about the last two Senate Banking Committee hearings.
Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377143
WARREN TO BERNANKE: "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434722
I like what Senator Warren is doing, which is highlighting the problems that have plagued the implementation and enforcement of Dodd-Frank. See the exchange beginning at 3:25 mins of the Bernanke clip at the link. First , she went after regulators for not doing their jobs, which has huge implications for Dodd-Frank.
An $83 billion dollars subsidy for the biggest banks runs counter to the notion that these institutions are too big to fail. Invoking Dodd-Frank is fine, but it requires enforcement of its provisions.
Now a group is pushing for implementation of the Volcker Rule.
Wall Street reform was a huge achievement, but while its implementation is being ignored by supporters, its opponents are doing everything in their power to delay it.
Anyone paying attention saw this coming in 2011.
Occupy Movement Files Lawsuit Against Every Federal Regulator of Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022444086
Statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren on confirmation of Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441721
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022383150
Which Republican will Warren face in 2016?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022396604
"Bankers dine regularly with the President, whose staff and cabinet are filled with other bankers on loan from Wall Street. They are treated with fawning and obsequious respect by both parties in Congress. "
Thank God for Elizabeth Warren. People are finally taking Wall Street reform seriously.
The Wall Street reform law would have a significant impact if implementation is sped up.
Think about the last two Senate Banking Committee hearings.
Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022377143
WARREN TO BERNANKE: "So when are we gonna get rid of 'too big to fail?'"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022434722
I like what Senator Warren is doing, which is highlighting the problems that have plagued the implementation and enforcement of Dodd-Frank. See the exchange beginning at 3:25 mins of the Bernanke clip at the link. First , she went after regulators for not doing their jobs, which has huge implications for Dodd-Frank.
An $83 billion dollars subsidy for the biggest banks runs counter to the notion that these institutions are too big to fail. Invoking Dodd-Frank is fine, but it requires enforcement of its provisions.
Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the Council) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America or the bank) poses a grave threat to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Orderly Liquidation Fund
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
Now a group is pushing for implementation of the Volcker Rule.
Occupy the SEC Sues Fed, SEC, OCC, CFTC, FDIC, Treasury Due To Failure To Implement Volcker Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (OWS) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (OSEC), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, We dont make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule, were now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.
First, heres the link to Wednesdays story, directly from the OSEC blog: Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (OWS) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (OSEC), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, We dont make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule, were now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.
First, heres the link to Wednesdays story, directly from the OSEC blog: Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the Volcker Rule (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).- more -
Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative proprietary trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average persons checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.
Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.
The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserves discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
Wall Street reform was a huge achievement, but while its implementation is being ignored by supporters, its opponents are doing everything in their power to delay it.
Anyone paying attention saw this coming in 2011.
Report: Wall Streets Opposition to Dodd-Frank Reforms Echoes Its Resistance to New Deal Financial Safeguards
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as Exceedingly Dangerous, Monstrous Systems That Would Cripple the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industrys alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight, found.
The business communitys wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today, said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizens Congress Watch division and author of the report. If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDICs authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as Exceedingly Dangerous, Monstrous Systems That Would Cripple the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industrys alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight, found.
The business communitys wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today, said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizens Congress Watch division and author of the report. If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDICs authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Occupy Movement Files Lawsuit Against Every Federal Regulator of Wall Street
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022444086
Statement from Sen. Elizabeth Warren on confirmation of Jack Lew as Secretary of the Treasury
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441721
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
265 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yep, righties complain about the high "rates" of taxes on corporations too...
cascadiance
Mar 2013
#113
Its supposed to include capital gains, federal and state, sales tax, property taxes, etc
bhikkhu
Mar 2013
#67
Capitals gains is the central point, and the bulk of the poolside billionaires' income.
GoneFishin
Mar 2013
#122
Capital gains is a much different rate than income tax, this is alsp the reason Warren Buffett
Thinkingabout
Mar 2013
#123
The top one percent have just experienced the loss of the Bush tax cuts for themselves
fasttense
Mar 2013
#43
That says based on "income". I don't think capital gains is considered income
cui bono
Mar 2013
#192
Catch-22. The people who have the power to change the system are part of the system.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2013
#13
exactly- how long did it take for the scoundrels to pass the (un)patriot act?
green for victory
Mar 2013
#130
We need to fix the voting system first. Wont be able to get campaign finance laws
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#125
Ratfuckers generally do advocate for a "new" Democratic party. But that's not what you are, right
KittyWampus
Mar 2013
#3
Your reply makes his point. That is a hateful reply aimed at stifling discussion.
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#224
He's also making the point tha Obama is offering the Republicans what they want.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2013
#26
The problem 'centrists' face right now is that one Party is offering actual compromise (DNC)
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2013
#198
One that stands for good government, that won't trade long-term stability for today's talking points
bhikkhu
Mar 2013
#20
What'sa Matter Manny, GOP Implosion Getting You Down? U Figure The Dems Need One of Their Own Too?
Skraxx
Mar 2013
#21
Yes they are very welcome here. That is exactly what the OP is doing, defending
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#236
I believe it was you who conducted the purity test on the OP. Since you set yourself
sabrina 1
Mar 2013
#241
Voters did not "reject progressive candidates"--voters rejected candidates who ran lousy campaigns
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#225
There was a lot of talk about the Democratic Party throwing elections back then.
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#261
We need a new Rethug party, too, don't ya think? The GOP we have now is full of criminals.
judesedit
Mar 2013
#47
Uh, not quite. Maybe you missed the letter that many in the progressive caucus won't sign.
Dawgs
Mar 2013
#63
Republican strategy is to spend fast and furious when they are in power, then
GoneFishin
Mar 2013
#157
Almost all our institutions are a complete wreck. I agree that there has to be some beachhead.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2013
#71
What can we do other then go to the streets. I'm already surprised that the people
southernyankeebelle
Mar 2013
#78
I wish we'd make our tent a little smaller and send the conservadems back to the Republican Party
Cleita
Mar 2013
#94
Now it is the Third Way centrists who maintain that both Parties are equally at fault
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2013
#202
You're totally right - Talk is easy; walking the walk is not; get off your asses
pattiepcomedy
Mar 2013
#112
"Manny and posts that attack the President will always get hundreds of recs."
Number23
Mar 2013
#183
I would be great if Dems stopped being moderate Republicans and Republicans
I Cant Dance
Mar 2013
#109
We need the old Democratic Party back. Kick out the damn conservatives. nm
rhett o rick
Mar 2013
#127
Do you have a link showing that both the CBO and the SSA is using ~8% UE rate
I Cant Dance
Mar 2013
#144
Nobody can predict the future, so that argument goes in circles. You oppose lifting the SS cap.
Romulox
Mar 2013
#219
I couldn't agree with you (or Senator Sanders) more. The arguments against are insane. nt
Romulox
Mar 2013
#242
+22,198 and +4 (the number coincidentally that Nader got in New Hampshire)
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#153
I hear you, and I agree. I feel exactly the same about all the political parties here
BelgianMadCow
Mar 2013
#138
This is what happens when the vast majority of the money and power is hoarded by just a few.
w4rma
Mar 2013
#149
I notice 10 hours after this thread started, you just added the following-
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#176
I love your posts. They are highly entertaining. Love conversing with you.
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#179
Issues are too complicated for someone whose first instinct is to compromise to solve
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#244
K & R, to be liberal is to want what our forefathers fully intended, to ensure the survival
mother earth
Mar 2013
#228