Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Clinton Daily News Integiew"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Even Krugman says in a column two days ago that yes, not only may there still be a need to break up some of the banks, that might not go far enough. Even the current Dodd-Frank "living will" requirement of banks in the event of a potential financial collapse might not be enough to prevent the need for taxpayer bailouts and other measures - and recall that 11 big banks had their "living will" plans rejected by FDIC. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/opinion/snoopy-the-destroyer.html Seems to me that this is all terribly ironic given just a few days ago people on DCUM in their haste to try and find fault with Sanders were claiming "no economists agree with Sanders and Krugman says it's wrong to want to break up the banks" - which is obviously false given Krugman's own latest column. Seems Sanders is actually far closer to the mark than Clinton is.[/quote] You're such a freakin' biased liar! -- I just read Krugman's column, and it doesn't say anything like what you're claiming. Show me where the column advocates for breaking up banks. Here's what Krugman actually says ... [quote]Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that [u]making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point[/u]. What we need is [u]regulation that limits the risks[/u] from nonbank institutions — and [u]the 2010 financial reform tries to do just that[/u]. The way it does this is by allowing regulators to designate some firms “systemically important,” meaning that, like A.I.G., their failure or the prospect thereof could threaten financial stability. Once an institution is so designated, it is subject to [u]extra oversight and regulation[/u].[/quote] ... which is pretty much the opposite of what you're claiming here. I lose respect for Bernie when his fans lie like this. Please stop.[/quote] In her NYDN interview Hillary Clinton said they could and would break up banks via Dodd Frank if necessary. Seems to my you guys are tripping over yourselves in pushing back so hard against Sanders on this.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics