Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!
Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!
Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??
> The sad reality is, this type of behavior is not confined to one party or the other. Money should have no place in politics, otherwise you end up with a plutocracy in a democracies clothing, which is where we have been for some time now.
I don't disagree in general, but in specifics: the GOP has decided the CFPB is going to die, on principle. The CFPB was an awesome and forwards-thinking organization and if we are going to rely on government interventions, they're the type of organization we need to oversee the results. I've worked with an at fintech companies and the CFPB was incredibly friendly and honest with everyone I've talked to.
And having worked at a bank, having that agency as an empowered and potentially wrathful actor was very healthy, agency wide, imo.
I agree there are major campaign finance issues, but let's at least give the Democrats credit for backing and empowering such an agency. It is absolutely necessary.
> Everything you say is accurate except the insinuation that Democrats are mostly at fault. George W. Bush was in office for the worst of it
In this matter, Bush's sins are sins of omission - as you point out, he didn't do anything. Dems did something, but what they did was wrong. For example, they actively protected Fannie and Freddie. Those are sins of comission.
Note that Bush didn't change the regulatory structure - he went with what Clinton left him. Again - omission vs comission.
It's the difference between manslaughter and murder.
And, that's ignoring ACORN's role. Among other things, they picketed banks that didn't make enough loans to folks who couldn't afford them. They tried to intervene with regulators. And so on.
Yes, Bush might have been able to keep this from happening, but he would have been fighting Dems the whole way.
He didn't fight. They pushed bad policies. There is a difference.
And, I note that Barney Frank is still in office and Gorelick, among others, are in the Obama administration.
In this case, there is no defining line between the two major parties. They both rely heavily on bank lobbyists and come from their stock. There's going to be no changes.
> Schumer is awful on a lot of levels, but I don't seem him losing his office unless he goes the way Sheldon Silver did.
Agreed. New York politicians can get away with attempted murder caught on videotape (literally) and there's still no chance that they'll lose re-election, thanks to the array of arcane election laws that, in practice, collectively disenfranchise New York voters.
Yes that's exactly what I said. How about we forbid them from ever trading in stocks or participate in any investment where they might even have a remote conflict of interest?
I feel that would be the best way to keep crooks like Pelosi out of politics.
> Them, and their families.
This is nonsense but you must hate politicians apparently. I don't, I hate corruption.
> Once you agree to make concessions because your counterparty threatens to cause economic disaster if you do not, you have encouraged them to do that over and over again to get their way.
That's just a rationalization for being unwilling to cooperate and compromise.
They're both in a car heading towards a cliff. One party has its foot on the gas, the other has its hands on the wheel, and neither will move. Complaining about how unreasonable the other side is doesn't change that fact doesn't make your side reasonable except to your partisans.
If the Republicans were responsible, they wouldn't be refusing to pass a debt limit increase. If the Democrats were responsible, they'd compromise now and wait for the next opportunity to repeal the debt limit (not fantasizing about untried gimmicks like platinum coins and a constitutional challenge). Neither party is being responsible.
Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
> I think the important part is that he doesn't have personal connections either directly with the industry lobbyists, or with prominent Dem leadership figures who do.
No, he didn't get to be the ranking member of the Banking Committee without personal connections with just about every Dem leadership figure that matters, especially in the Senate.
Now, he might have the moral fortitude to stand up for his public values despite such connections, but denying that they exist is ludicrous.
>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.
Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal?
If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.
Two words: Chuck Schumer.
He's the Democrats lifeline to the Wall Street, and he'll be damned if the Democrats do anything to jeopardize that relationship.
Of course, Republicans are even worse.
reply