2016 Democratic Thread

[Balta1701]

OTC is not the same as unregulated. It means not cleared. Key difference. Those swaps were lightly regulated, and not cleared.

 

The definition of shadow banking is by nature full of shades of grey, but it seems to me that a business with trillions of dollars in motion via legally binding contracts between registered financial institutions doesn't qualify.

 

By the way, I am not saying there isn't a problem with banking activities in unregulated or marginally regulated spaces. It is an issue. However I don't consider the problem of uncleared OTC swaps as part of that.

The "not cleared" part is the point - that's what kept them "marginally regulated" as you say it here. That's what is being lumped in together as "Shadow banking" - it's avoiding the regulation of traditional banks through avoiding the "clearing" process as you define it here. You're making a language distinction when the distinction is really unimportant - "Shadow banking" is being used as the catch all since, as you say, it is "full of shades of grey". The reason why there's a "Shadow" is that it is "lightly regulated" through the fact that it's not being exposed to the regular market regulation that would fit that kind of transaction if the institution were a normally regulated bank/insurer.

[NorthSideSox72]

The "not cleared" part is the point - that's what kept them "marginally regulated" as you say it here. That's what is being lumped in together as "Shadow banking" - it's avoiding the regulation of traditional banks through avoiding the "clearing" process as you define it here. You're making a language distinction when the distinction is really unimportant - "Shadow banking" is being used as the catch all since, as you say, it is "full of shades of grey". The reason why there's a "Shadow" is that it is "lightly regulated" through the fact that it's not being exposed to the regular market regulation that would fit that kind of transaction if the institution were a normally regulated bank/insurer.

Key distinction to make on the bolded. With swaps, most of the time, the swaps had either one or both sides as regular banks. What was missing was a clearing house that acted as the insurer against payment failure. In other words, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers would do swaps, but with no intermediary agent. For the buy-protection side, they were then able to characterize the underlying instruments as risk-free, when really they were just transferring the risk from the bond obligator to the institution on the other side of the swap. So it wasn't necessarily that the institutions making the deals were unregulated - it was that the transaction was a transfer of risk, accounted for as a buy-away of risk. More than anything, it was about a lack of insurance and some accounting wizardry.

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

So when employers cut my salary by 6.2 percent to make up for what they have to pay the government for healthcare, I'm not really saving $5,000 per year under this plan.

 

In my place of employment our contract stipulates that the employee and the employer pay equal parts in our health insurance premium. I spent a little time running some numbers based on what I know regarding our average salary and what our health insurance premiums are. Using what I calculated our average wage ($37,440) to be (we are a union manufacturing shop with contract stipulated wages) here are my results.

 

Costs: Here are the current costs my company pays on average for each employee

 

Employees on a single plan - The company and employee each pay roughly 6.3% of this employee's wage in health insurance premiums.

Employees on a single plus one plan - The company and employee each pay roughly 12.0% of this employee's wage in health insurance premiums.

Employees on a family plan - The company and employee each pay roughly 15.5% of this employee's wage in health insurance premiums.

 

Savings: Here would be the rough yearly savings under Sanders' plan

 

Employees on a single plan - The company would save $65.72 per employee and the employee would save $1563.32

Employees on a single plus one plan - The company would save $2163.40 per employee and the employee would save $3661

Employees on a family plan - The company would save $3479.76 per employee and the employee would save $4977.36

 

Obviously not everyone elects the medical plan due to spouses receiving it through their job or obtaining it privately or whatever the reason may be, but at least in my company's case they will more than likely save money and lowering wages because of this tax would be a pretty s***ty thing to do and due to our collective bargaining rights, something I do not think the union would allow.

Edited January 22, 2016 by lasttriptotulsa

[StrangeSox]

Conservative magazine National Review published their latest issue with 22 anti-Trump essays.

 

The RNC promptly returned the favor by disinviting NR as a debate partner.

 

Looks like at least some of the Republican establishment is warming up to Trump as nominee.

[NorthSideSox72]

Conservative magazine National Review published their latest issue with 22 anti-Trump essays.

 

The RNC promptly returned the favor by disinviting NR as a debate partner.

 

Looks like at least some of the Republican establishment is warming up to Trump as nominee.

I still doubt he can win. With the field this wide, the problem Trump has is that he's got a rabid following, but people who aren't within that following won't go to him as candidates drop off. It's polar when it comes to Trump. Iowa will cause some candidates to drop off, but those votes won't be distributed evenly.

 

[caulfield12]

I still doubt he can win. With the field this wide, the problem Trump has is that he's got a rabid following, but people who aren't within that following won't go to him as candidates drop off. It's polar when it comes to Trump. Iowa will cause some candidates to drop off, but those votes won't be distributed evenly.

 

Nate Silver's new premise....GOP establishment is even more concerned with Cruz winning

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-bi...tical-of-trump/

[StrangeSox]

The white-hot hatred that most of the GOP establishment has for Cruz really is the compounding factor there. If Rubio can't stick around and start picking up some additional support, I really don't know who else they could turn to. The rest of the field seems pretty irrelevant at this point.

[NorthSideSox72]

Nate Silver's new premise....GOP establishment is even more concerned with Cruz winning

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-bi...tical-of-trump/

Yeah that's the biggest problem. If it was Trump, but with someone moderate right behind him, that's more ideal. At this point I'm sure they are hoping that as other candidates drop off, someone like Rubio or Bush will be taking up those votes and present a real challenge to the nutballs.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Nate Silver's new premise....GOP establishment is even more concerned with Cruz winning

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/one-bi...tical-of-trump/

I think Cruz has a better shot so I can see why and I can't stand him.

[pettie4sox]

I think Cruz has a better shot so I can see why and I can't stand him.

 

Can you imagine Cruz debating Sanders?

 

Wow, if they had a betting line for that you could make serious bank.

[caulfield12]

Can you imagine Cruz debating Sanders?

 

Wow, if they had a betting line for that you could make serious bank.

 

Still doesn't make Cruz likeable. And therein lies the problem. How can you lead if nobody likes you or can get along with you? Obama hasn't worked well with GOP and vice-versa, but Cruz?

 

Trump is pragmatic enough to shift with the political winds when it's advantageous.

 

Cruz would just dig his heels in.

 

Abraham Lincoln he's not.

[pettie4sox]

Still doesn't make Cruz likeable. And therein lies the problem. How can you lead if nobody likes you or can get along with you? Obama hasn't worked well with GOP and vice-versa, but Cruz?

 

Trump is pragmatic enough to shift with the political winds when it's advantageous.

 

Cruz would just dig his heels in.

 

Abraham Lincoln he's not.

 

Cruz is not presidential material. He's like a Trump lite with a politician's tongue.

 

Sanders would mop the floor with Cruz.

[NorthSideSox72]

Cruz is not presidential material. He's like a Trump lite with a politician's tongue.

 

Sanders would mop the floor with Cruz.

Pretty sure Sanders would wipe the floor with Trump too.

 

It's all pretty amazing. The GOP is facing this possibility (which I still think isn't the most likely, but is possible) that their nominee could be completely unelectable, and even have a serious negative effect down-ticket.

 

IF they're lucky, they can keep both Bush and Cruz under 50% of delegates, go to a brokered convention and line up for a moderate candidate. That's assuming Cruz and Trump don't collapse, which I think they likely will before that point.

 

If either of them do win the nomination by some amazing event, it guarantees a Dem President and serious Dem pickups in Congress.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Quite frankly..none of the top 4 candidates on either party are electable in my opinion.

[Chisoxfn]

Oh and I realize we all say they aren't electable, but here we are in January and they haven't gone anywhere yet. So at some point are we all going to go, wow, everyone was wrong while one of them is actually elected president?

[bmags]

I think you are being a little dramatic and putting a little too much power in the presidential position. I think Trump Cruz are insane, but nothing about Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders, Rubio, Bush/etc scream anomaly to our political history.

[greg775]

Still doesn't make Cruz likeable. And therein lies the problem. How can you lead if nobody likes you or can get along with you? Obama hasn't worked well with GOP and vice-versa, but Cruz?

 

Trump is pragmatic enough to shift with the political winds when it's advantageous.

 

Cruz would just dig his heels in.

 

Abraham Lincoln he's not.

Interesting topic on likeability. As much as I'm now concerned about Trump, when he speaks he is kind of likeable IMO. Cruz ... oh my gosh, he's the definition of unlikeable. Ditto Hillary. Now Sanders .... he's sort of likeable IMO. I'd say we should have Sanders vs. Trump with somebody running as a third party. Can you say Jesse Ventura?

[Chisoxfn]

I think you are being a little dramatic and putting a little too much power in the presidential position. I think Trump Cruz are insane, but nothing about Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders, Rubio, Bush/etc scream anomaly to our political history.

In my personal opinion, Sanders would be a total anomaly. Dude is full blown socialist. Whether you or anyone else agrees with that or not is not my perogative and Hillary has her own massive issues. I would agree if you referenced Rubio or Bush as being pretty normal.

 

John Kerry would win this election in a landslide. Honestly, I've never disliked the top 4 candidates (2 on each side) more than in this election.

[caulfield12]

In my personal opinion, Sanders would be a total anomaly. Dude is full blown socialist. Whether you or anyone else agrees with that or not is not my perogative and Hillary has her own massive issues. I would agree if you referenced Rubio or Bush as being pretty normal.

 

John Kerry would win this election in a landslide. Honestly, I've never disliked the top 4 candidates (2 on each side) more than in this election.

 

Which version of Rubio? Centrist/moderate on immigration or Tea Party fiscal conservative?

[pettie4sox]

In my personal opinion, Sanders would be a total anomaly. Dude is full blown socialist. Whether you or anyone else agrees with that or not is not my perogative and Hillary has her own massive issues. I would agree if you referenced Rubio or Bush as being pretty normal.

 

John Kerry would win this election in a landslide. Honestly, I've never disliked the top 4 candidates (2 on each side) more than in this election.

 

SMDH

[bmags]

Sanders single payer isn't even literally taking over healthcare, so I don't know how you can be a full blown socialist and not take over any industry.

[bmags]

Considering how freaking long this presidential race has been, I find it funny they moved Iowa back. When did this happen? I only just remembered after a memory of reading a nytimes on an abroad trip in early january 2008 that said she won New Hampshire, and that won't be until into february.

[cabiness42]

When do we get to see Bernie Sanders debate Sam Seaborn?

[StrangeSox]

Hillary talking about Reconstruction in the south was pretty damn terrible

 

Hillary Clinton Goes Back to the Dunning School

 

Clinton, whether she knows it or not, is retelling a racist—though popular—version of American history which held sway in this country until relatively recently. Sometimes going under the handle of “The Dunning School,” and other times going under the “Lost Cause” label, the basic idea is that Reconstruction was a mistake brought about by vengeful Northern radicals. The result was a savage and corrupt government which in turn left former Confederates, as Clinton puts, it “discouraged and defiant.”

 

A sample of the genre is offered here by historian Ulrich Phillips:

 

Lincoln in his plan of reconstruction had shown unexpected magnanimity; the Republican party, discarding that obnoxious name, had officially styled itself merely Unionist; and the Northern Democrats, although outvoted, were still a friendly force to be reckoned upon … With Johnson then on Lincoln's path “back to normalcy”, Southern hearts were lightened only to sink again when radicals in Congress, calling themselves Republicans once more, overslaughed the Presidential programme and set events in train which seemed to make "the Africanization of the South" inescapable. To most of the whites, doubtless, the prospect showed no gleam of hope.

 

Notably absent from it is the fact that Lincoln was killed by a white supremacist, that Johnson was a white supremacist who tried to curtail virtually all rights black people enjoyed, that the “hope” of white Southerners lay in the pillage of black labor, that this was accomplished through a century-long campaign of domestic terrorism, and that for most of that history the federal government looked the other way, while state and local governments were complicit.

 

Yet until relatively recently, this self-serving version of history was dominant. It is almost certainly the version fed to Hillary Clinton during her school years, and possibly even as a college student. Hillary Clinton is no longer a college student. And the fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.

[caulfield12]

Hillary talking about Reconstruction in the south was pretty damn terrible

 

Hillary Clinton Goes Back to the Dunning School

 

 

 

Notably absent from it is the fact that Lincoln was killed by a white supremacist, that Johnson was a white supremacist who tried to curtail virtually all rights black people enjoyed, that the “hope” of white Southerners lay in the pillage of black labor, that this was accomplished through a century-long campaign of domestic terrorism, and that for most of that history the federal government looked the other way, while state and local governments were complicit.

 

Yet until relatively recently, this self-serving version of history was dominant. It is almost certainly the version fed to Hillary Clinton during her school years, and possibly even as a college student. Hillary Clinton is no longer a college student. And the fact that a presidential candidate would imply that Jim Crow and Reconstruction were equal, that the era of lynching and white supremacist violence would have been prevented had that same violence not killed Lincoln, and that the violence was simply the result of rancor, the absence of a forgiving spirit, and an understandably “discouraged” South is chilling.

 

Why exactly would she learn that in the northern suburbs of Chicago and Wesleyan?

 

From her time in Arkansas?