Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

thank god we didn't wait until there were, you know, real and substantial reforms written into the bailout, and just handed over a check. wouldn't want to not be taken seriously by someone who counts money for a living.

first suggestion I've seen of the House actually being in play in 2016, thx to GOP meltdown:
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9382

filing deadlines still haven't passed in a majority of districts

get on it Berniebros

Bank Bailout she voted for.
I'm tired of people acting like the bank bailouts were some tremendous failure. They were not a failure. They weren't even really bailouts in the end. TARP booked a 15.3 billion dollar profit for the US Treasury. The effectiveness of TARP can certainly be debated, but what exactly was the alternative? Letting some of the largest banks in the country go into liquidation? Anyone who seriously thinks inaction was a superior alternative can't be taken seriously.

But facts never get in the way of a convenient talking point, even for people on the left.

― Gatemouth, Friday, March 18, 2016 1:23 PM (29 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So otm, I'm glad she voted for TARP. Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

Which of those do we have any reason to believe she supports or would have supported?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/clinton-calls-for-end-to-carried-interest-tax-break/

Barney seems p confident about her support of Dodd-Frank

xp

Also..."but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html

Obviously ymmv as to whether these are sincere and believable statements, but she's on the record with them.

lol:
https://twitter.com/timothypmurphy/status/710932875256991744

Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

couldn't these have been, i dunno, written into the terms of the bailout? i'm no legislator mind you but.... isn't this the reason why people who dislike the bailout, dislike the bailout? the vague promise that congress would someday come back around to this and prevent another disaster of the deregulated financial market doesn't really cut it in 2016 ("I would also fight for...") any more than it did in 2009, right?

Bernie skippin' AIPAC

my man

perhaps relevant to consider how fast TARP was written and passed, iirc there was not a lot of time for tinkering. maybe there were amendments ready to go that were voted down, I don't remember.

xp

AIPAC is an abomination

BUT I think it's worth saying that if pro-Sanders folks can ask us to distinguish the thoughts of Joe Sanders Supporter from the thoughts of the candidate himself, then surely Clinton deserves at least some of the same courtesy? No?

NO HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THE SAINT TO THE DEVIL

Problem isn't TARP, but lack of accountability (hearings, regulatory crackdown, etc.) post-bailout, Dodd-Frank not having stronger teeth, inability to close carried-interest loophole, etc.

couldn't these have been, i dunno, written into the terms of the bailout? i'm no legislator mind you but.... isn't this the reason why people who dislike the bailout, dislike the bailout? the vague promise that congress would someday come back around to this and prevent another disaster of the deregulated financial market doesn't really cut it in 2016 ("I would also fight for...") any more than it did in 2009, right?

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 18, 2016 2:30 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I actually agree, but I think it's relevant that TARP didn't pass in 2009, it passed in 2008 when GWB was president. It's far enough away now that I don't know what the then-sitting president would have supported, but I think that's a relevant limiting factor.

yet another Rubio obit, this one well-sourced.

Rubio's handling of the Gang of Eight negotiations might offer a window into his executive style. "He was the guy who would show up late, leave early and leave the dirty work to his staff," recalls one aide who worked behind the scenes on the bill. "You'd have a situation where all the members would be in the room and a couple of senators would be arguing, and then Rubio's staffer would be arguing, while Rubio would be sitting back with a Cheshire-cat grin on his face, watching."

To the shock of many people who were involved with the bill, Rubio outsourced the bulk of the negotiations to a close friend and hired gun, Miami attorney Enrique Gonzalez. While hiring experts is far from unusual, Gonzalez is an attorney at one of the most prominent corporate immigration law firms in the country, and Rubio made him the head of his team. "Enrique's role was to make sure the business community loved this bill and knew who it was who took care of them," says the aide. "From a political standpoint, that was a smart play. But it was also incredibly irresponsible, a case study in the donor class controlling our politics. And what it says about what kind of president Rubio would be is quite frightening." This is why Trump's attacks on Rubio have resonated – "He's right," the staffer continues. "The establishment looks at him and says, 'He'll play ball.' And the immigration bill is evidence of that."

guy has graft all over him, good riddence. however I still liked him more than cruz or trump

how do you feel about bucket of vomit vs. pile of shit

at least with bucket of vomit, you get a bucket

ok lol

“I would very much have enjoyed speaking at the AIPAC conference,” Sanders said in a letter Friday to Robert Cohen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee president.

“Obviously, issues impacting Israel and the Middle East are of the utmost importance to me, to our country and to the world,” he said. “Unfortunately, I am going to be traveling throughout the West and the campaign schedule that we have prevents me from attending. Since AIPAC has chosen not to permit candidates to address the conference remotely, the best that I can do is to send you a copy of the remarks that I would have given if I was able to attend.”

however i would not be surprised if his remarks were pointed + critical

You can grow stuff with a pile of shit.

xp

couldn't these have been, i dunno, written into the terms of the bailout? i'm no legislator mind you but.... isn't this the reason why people who dislike the bailout, dislike the bailout? the vague promise that congress would someday come back around to this and prevent another disaster of the deregulated financial market doesn't really cut it in 2016 ("I would also fight for...") any more than it did in 2009, right?

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 18, 2016 5:30 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there are good criticisms of TARP but brink of financial apocalypse is not exactly when you want to initiate a considered debate on financial reform. people barely understood what was going on at the time. if anything dodd-frank is a better target as a missed opportunity. Bernanke & Geithner knew they had to do some fast and dirty shit to keep it from turning into the Great Depression #2 and they succeeded. blame lies more on them for what they wrote than the politicians who voted for it.

JCLC going all Good Democrat on us has definitely been one of the more personally disappointing election season trends

brink of financial apocalypse is not exactly when you want to initiate a considered debate on financial reform

right, and after a mass shooting is not when you want to initiate a considered debate on gun law reform

i guess we can all have this discussion during the next collapse in, oh, 4 years or so

i get the brink-of-apocalypse thing. it just seems, i dunno... like, you're handing over that much money to basically some private companies. even if you, Senator X, don't blame those companies in particular for the enormous fucking disaster happening all around, it seems like the other side of the argument would be, brink of financial collapse is exactly when you could demand something in return. congress held all the cards, though the sky-is-falling narrative certainly worked to the banks' advantage. waiting until the banks were stable to initiate a reasoned discussion of how the market might be returned to pre-reagan regulatory limitation has not exactly panned out.

more quality analogies from Adam

in other news, from Alfred's link this is the 2nd time I've seen Bartlett quoted to this effect:
Bartlett is supporting Trump – not because he likes him, but because he is convinced he will lose by a landslide, which, he thinks, is just the medicine the GOP needs. "Republicans have to be brought back to reality and at least make electability the prime criteria for getting the party nomination," he says. "That alone will put pragmatists back in control."

I have to wonder if that latter part about electability becoming central again will play out. Trump's loss v easily slots into a "we didn't elect a REAL conservative, and that's why we lost!" narrative that conservatives love. (I can hear Cruz mansplaining this already)

right, and after a mass shooting is not when you want to initiate a considered debate on gun law reform

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, March 18, 2016 6:16 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you're dumb

i get the brink-of-apocalypse thing. it just seems, i dunno... like, you're handing over that much money to basically some private companies. even if you, Senator X, don't blame those companies in particular for the enormous fucking disaster happening all around, it seems like the other side of the argument would be, brink of financial collapse is exactly when you could demand something in return. congress held all the cards, though the sky-is-falling narrative certainly worked to the banks' advantage. waiting until the banks were stable to initiate a reasoned discussion of how the market might be returned to pre-reagan regulatory limitation has not exactly panned out.

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Friday, March 18, 2016 6:19 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there was a reform that succeeded the crisis that attempted to address the specific weaknesses of the financial sector, called Dodd-Frank. it's 850 pages long. do you think they should have sat down and drafted that document when the Dow Jones was dropping 7% a day?

The "real conservative" line is pretty much a true Scotsman gambit, imo. xp

yeah I think critics are overlooking the time frame here. It's not like Congress needs a crisis in order to extract concessions from the banking sector, they can pass laws whenever the hell they want to. If cracking down didn't happen after the bailout had already passed, it's because there were other factors at work (hmm I wonder what those could be)

xp

TARP booked a 15.3 billion dollar profit for the US Treasury.

cool we should do this every week, pay for the military

standard anti-TARP argument is that the banks should have been nationalized, no? Not sure how that would have played out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Financial_Investments

not on the same absolute scale, big details different, but a similar fraction of the banking sector

The "real conservative" line is pretty much a true Scotsman gambit, imo

it totally is, which is why it's so handily resilient!

to be clear I was happy to entertain the prospect of nationalization, but I don't really have any idea how it would have played out on such a huge scale. The votes definitely weren't there for it, and there wasn't a lot of time for arm-twisting - I assume Adam's position is that lefties should've withheld their votes and risked total financial catastrophe in the interests of getting their way with a risky scheme hmm wait where have I heard that before

i don't think the "real conservative" argument is going to work this time bc normally the way it operates is the party picks a compromise electable candidate to try to appeal to the moderate center and the hard right says "well of course they rejected you you ran democratic lite, if you ran a conservative you would've turned out the base and won." but you can't say that if the base is coming out in droves and it's not for the electable guy.

tons of paleoconservative guys are against Trump - Erick Erickson, NRO, Cruz, etc. there is def room for that argument.

The argument would also be easily ripe for co-opting by the establishment, which rightly fears the election losses Trump is going to engender

establishment types could argue "see why did you foolish plebes abandon core conservative principles for this con-man?! Return to the sweet bosom of trickle down economics and dog-whistling"

the worst aspects of tarp is that nobody wanted to take a hair cut on what they were owed. it was 100% privatize profits, socialize losses, which is some anti capitalist bullshit, imo.

taking the risk out of risk management amirite

seems pretty pro-capitalist to me

capitalism has always relied on gov'ts to prop it up

Difference between pure capitalism and monied interests asking for government bailouts shocker.

rent seekers gonna seek

he is staying in out of the home that he can convince enough superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate majority

I'm not sure that the content of the interview adds up to this, although he is a bit vague.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/what-bernie-sanders-has-achieved?mbid=nl_160318_daily&CNDID=26735857&spMailingID=8684571&spUserID=MTA5MjQwNDkyNzc5S0&spJobID=882044232&spReportId=ODgyMDQ0MjMyS0

john cassidy (who was pretty harsh toward bernie earlier in the race) on what his run has accomplished

ehh, i guess i really shouldn't try and argue about the bailout - i genuinely don't know enough about it, though i still feel like my gut is pointing me in the right direction. obviously many dopey and ill-informed beliefs are maintained by similar methods.

all US help for big banks can be summarized, Raging Bull style, as SUCKING BIG FAT ELEPHANT DICKS