Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:39
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.
Bill Clinton isn't a candidate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are the candidates.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:35
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.
Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.
That excerpt of the exchange in question was posted in the Sanders NYDN thread and was already discussed ad nauseam there. The interviewer was clearly confused and Sanders keeps correcting the interviewer with Treasury whenever the Fed is mentioned.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:32
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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 ...
Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point. What we need is regulation that limits the risks from nonbank institutions — and the 2010 financial reform tries to do just that. 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 extra oversight and regulation.
... 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.
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.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:31
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.
Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.
Can you post that exchange? I must've missed it.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:29
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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 ...
Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point. What we need is regulation that limits the risks from nonbank institutions — and the 2010 financial reform tries to do just that. 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 extra oversight and regulation.
... 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.
It's not the be-all-and-end-all but it's a necessary tool where appropriate. Might want to read up on what Simon Johnson and others have to say. https://baselinescenario.com/
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:28
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.
Is Bill Clinton running for president? That would be awesome!
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:24
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Um, Bill Clinton's recent explosion at BLM protesters wasn't exactly a great example of the Presidential way of dealing with things.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:24
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote: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.
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 ...
Oh, and yes, the episode also showed that making the breakup of big banks the be-all and end-all of reform misses the point. What we need is regulation that limits the risks from nonbank institutions — and the 2010 financial reform tries to do just that. 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 extra oversight and regulation.
... 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.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 08:05
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.
Lame. You clearly didn't actually read the transcript, because he did correct the interviewer but the interviewer was not interested in being corrected and instead just moved on to the next item, the interviewer had an agenda in mind (hence it was no surprise to see their endorsement of Clinton, which was no doubt already decided before the interview even happened). Had Sanders gotten more aggressive and assertive than he did about correcting the interviewer I'm sure they would have loved that, because then they would have played him up as hostile, angry and uncooperative.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:59
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote: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.
And before the Hillary supporters launch into yet another round of NOO HE'S WRONG ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS BREAK UP BANKS, yes, yes, we all know that big banks weren't the only thing and weren't at the heart of the problem, but they certainly are part of it and the threat of big banks failing made it worse - that things like shady lending practices are a big issue that escalated risk: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548333/rep-bernie-sanders-banking-predatory-lending
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:57
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Yep. Bernie could've easily corrected that, and really shown the depth of his knowledge on the matter. I don't think he is one to be worried about the interviewer's feelings.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:51
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Let's assume that's true, just for the sake of argument. A candidate who can't definitively deal with an incompetent of biased nterview is frankly not someone who will be able to deal with much of anything as president.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:47
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
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.
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.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:39
Subject: Re:Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Look, she even knew about breaking the big banks:
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.
See the amazing contrast in the Hillary supporter responses?
Bernie Sanders: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "THAT'S WROOONG! BERNIE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! YOU CAN'T DO THAT! DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! OMG! OMG!"
Hillary Clinton: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "SEE! HILLARY KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT COMES TO THE BANKS!"
LOL!
If you really think she said the same thing Bernie did, then you seem to have missed quite a bit or have blinders on.
Nobody is saying they both said the exact same things verbatim but for damn sure Sanders got criticized for saying that the administration would already have some power to break up the banks via Dodd Frank, yet this is precisely what Clinton also repeated and restated.
The Sanders interview got muddled up by the fact that the interviewer confused the Fed with the Treasury. Sanders was talking about executive branch functions and powers within the Treasury.
Also, neither of them is saying break up big banks just for the sake of breaking them up. What's being said by both is that the banks need to be evaluated for risk. Clearly Bear Stearns, AIG and some other big financial institutions were problematic. And clearly history shows there were bad practices in play in the mortgage banking and derivatives world that need more close oversight and regulation, but it seems Hillary Clinton is inclined to be more laissez-faire than interventionist and some of us are not comfortable with that.
Anonymous
04/13/2016 07:14
Subject: Clinton Daily News Integiew
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.
It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.
Oh, right, I forgot. Every unbiased source endorses bernie, and every source that endorses clinton must be biased. Of course.
You know it