Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

Heh, the roots were already well deep into the ground thanks to our expert gardening in the 1980s.

 

Lots of specifics in Hillary's plan to deal with the big banks. LOL.

 

For sure, but in 1991 the US was effectively the world's only superpower, we had a huge coalition behind us, and effectively we could have done whatever we wanted and there wasn't much anybody could have done about it. We could have and should have bulldozed in, splattered Saddam on the floor tiles, arranged for Qaddafi to wake up dead, then smoked Osama and a bunch of his friends while we were at it in the cleanup operation.

But Daddy Bush pussied out. From the moment he limped away from Desert Storm, 9/11 was only a matter of time.

 

I can't remember exactly. Had Osama cashed all of our checks by that time? Probably, but . . .

 

Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

Daily News: If I hear you correctly, Dodd-Frank has got mechanisms for looking at institutions that are grave perils to the United States' economy. Do you believe now that any of the banks are inherently a grave threat to the United States' economy?

Clinton: At this point, I am not privy to the analysis that is being conducted under Dodd-Frank to make that determination. I am however quite concerned about the recent district court judgment overturning the regulators' assessment that MetLife should be considered an institution under the too big to fail rubric, because I don't think that the Financial Stability Oversight Council acted precipitously when they so labeled MetLife. And they clearly did their homework and came to that conclusion. And for a district judge to in a sense substitute her judgment for FSOC concerns me.
So right now, I don't know what the analysis of the existing potential for a grave threat or the suitability and completeness of their living wills might be. But I want to stress I will be looking for regulators who I have confidence in will be able to make those hard calls. We can't ever let what happened happen again.

But we've got to go further. We've got to have more transparency with hedge funds. We don't even know what kind of risk they pose. We need to look at repurchase agreements, which need more collateral so that they can't be used for the leverage that they were used before. That was a big problem with Lehman Brothers. We have to look at money market funds. One of the problems with one of the big money market funds back then was that it had too much Lehman Brothers debt in its portfolio and the government had to step in to boost it back up.

So my point has been continuously: The banks always have to be under now a tight regulatory oversight. But if all you do is look at the banks, you are missing shadow banking, and I have put forth a plan that everybody from Paul Krugman to professors of finance have said is a top-to-bottom, comprehensive look at not just what happened in the past but how we prevent risks in the future.
------------
Hillary’s plan will tackle dangerous risks in the financial system:

• Impose a risk fee on the largest financial institutions. Banks and financial companies would be required to pay a fee based on their size and their risk of contributing to another financial crisis.
  
  
• Close the Volcker Rule’s hedge fund loophole. The Volcker Rule prohibits banks from making risky trading bets with taxpayer-backed money—one of the core protections of the post-financial crisis Wall Street reforms. However, under current law these banks can still invest billions through hedge funds, which are exempt from this rule. Hillary would close that loophole and strengthen the law.
  
  
• Discourage excessive risk-taking by making senior bankers accountable. Senior managers should lose some or all of their bonus compensation when a large bank suffers losses that threaten its overall financial health.
  
  
• Make sure no firm is ever too big and too risky to be managed effectively.Hillary’s plan would give regulators more authority to force overly complex or risky firms to reorganize, downsize, or break apart.
  
  
• Tackle financial dangers of the “shadow banking” system. Hillary’s plan will enhance transparency and reduce volatility in the “shadow banking system,” which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies.
  
  
• Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. The growth of high-frequency trading has unnecessarily placed stress on our markets, created instability, and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies. Hillary would impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading and reform rules to make our stock markets fairer, more open, and transparent.
  

Hillary would also hold both corporations and individuals on Wall Street accountable by:

• Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.
  
  
• Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job.
  
  
• Holding corporations accountable when they break the law. As she enhances individual accountability, Hillary will make sure that corporations don’t treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, so that we can put an end to the patterns of corporate wrongdoing that we see too often today.
  

----
And this was me spending roughly 2 seconds looking. I'm sure she's said more in other interview.

 

Rarely are we provided such a clear glimpse into the mindset of the regulator class: If I don't understand it, it can't be allowed.

 

Gosh, quant, hold any credit default swaps in your time? Regulation occurs because complexity allows sharpies to cheat cuckers. It happened on the grand scale and the result almost destroyed the world economy. I know you're a sharp guy, but more and more, we see evidence on this board. evidence I didn't need, that free market conservatism has become a religion, not an economic idea It's beyond evidence.

 

#nuance

 

I told them to cut it out. LOL.

Regulators have to put pressure on banks -- or else. LOL.

She's really going to get tough with them.

 

Blog | HumanProgress.org

 

Hillary’s Hard Left Turn on Social Security

 

Are regulators human? Are they self-interested? And you're telling me I'm the one who's dogmatic?