[QUOTE=.Isak.;49789438]MoveOn decided it via popular vote. And MoveOn hasn't provided financial backing to Sanders in any way except through individual donations.
The tendency is for groups that vote for the endorsement go for Sanders - the groups that have a committee choose go for Hillary.[/QUOTE]
also MoveOn has raised like 5M$ in this race so far
[url]https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00341396[/url]
the Koch bro's have like 900M$ in this race...so apples to watermelons
[QUOTE=redBadger;49773834]I'm not much info the political business. Though some of my Republican friends always use socialism as the only excuse as to why not to vote for him.
Can someone explain why he is a good choice? I don't read up much on the candidates so I'd like to know[/QUOTE]
He is the only candidate who wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall legislation. This was a 1933 legislation created to limit the ability of commercial banks to engage with securities/investment banks. This was shit meant to pull America out of the Great Depression by limiting the abilities of the banking industry to damage the economy, as they did in the 30s.
It effectively split up investment banking and commercial banking and prohibited commercial banks from gambling on securities with commercial money. In the 80s and 90s, the interpretation of the law got looser and looser until Bill Clinton decided to get rid of the law entirely. Investment banks and commercial banks all merged until we had the 6 banks controlling nearly the entirety of the financial sector. Guess what they did in 2008 without these limitations? Gambled on securities and capsized the economy.
No other candidate wants to reinstate this legislation. It's a major factor for why the economy collapsed in 2008 and my family's small business fell apart. Sanders also wants to (finally) prosecute the groups that initiated the 2008 financial crisis and throw them in jail. No other candidate is doing this - Hillary just says she told them to "cut it out!" but that apparently didn't convince the banks to not kill the economy and tank my mom's business so that she has to work for a quarter of her old salary at 55 with no retirement in sight.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49777755]Americans in particular don't seem to understand this but political parties aren't permanent. They can die and be replaced.[/QUOTE]
The US system (with no proportional representation at all) heavily favours a two-party system.
It's more likely for the party positions to gradually shift than for any other party to have a chance at all, unless one of the ruling ones effectively vanishes.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49769056]NPR had a segment today explaining how that's not exactly the case.
To summarize, a lot of people don't believe Sanders' plans will work, let alone be implemented, [B]but they find Hillary's plans even less feasible.[/B] It boils down to another year of "voting for the lesser evil" more than "voting for the person you want".[/QUOTE]
but I thought Hillary was supposed to be the middle ground, not so left candidate?
[QUOTE=Blackavar;49789199]Realignment isn't shown in there. Democratic didn't always mean left-wing.[/QUOTE]
I know, I'm using this as a point of how long the nation has been two party
[QUOTE=The Baconator;49789728]but I thought Hillary was supposed to be the middle ground, not so left candidate?[/QUOTE]
There's only two choices for the Democrats, if they don't like either, they end up going with who they think will win over any other factor.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49789465]He is the only candidate who wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall legislation. This was a 1933 legislation created to limit the ability of commercial banks to engage with securities/investment banks. This was shit meant to pull America out of the Great Depression by limiting the abilities of the banking industry to damage the economy, as they did in the 30s.
It effectively split up investment banking and commercial banking and prohibited commercial banks from gambling on securities with commercial money. In the 80s and 90s, the interpretation of the law got looser and looser until Bill Clinton decided to get rid of the law entirely. Investment banks and commercial banks all merged until we had the 6 banks controlling nearly the entirety of the financial sector. Guess what they did in 2008 without these limitations? Gambled on securities and capsized the economy.
No other candidate wants to reinstate this legislation. It's a major factor for why the economy collapsed in 2008 and my family's small business fell apart. Sanders also wants to (finally) prosecute the groups that initiated the 2008 financial crisis and throw them in jail. No other candidate is doing this - Hillary just says she told them to "cut it out!" but that apparently didn't convince the banks to not kill the economy and tank my mom's business so that she has to work for a quarter of her old salary at 55 with no retirement in sight.[/QUOTE]
How would having the Glass-Steagall restrictions in place (and enforced) have prevented the financial crisis? The largest originators of MBSs were pure-play investment banks and did not participate in commercial banking. The biggest buyers of those MBSs were, by far, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. No amount of separation of investment and commercial banking would have prevented the crisis.
Can you please name the originators of MBSs?
[QUOTE=GravyKing;49778290]Bernie is being endorsed by MoveOn.org, the multi-billion dollar company run by George Soros. Pretty much the DNC's equivalent of the Koch brothers.[/QUOTE]
They endorse him because MoveOn members had a poll of who to endorse
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49790957]How would having the Glass-Steagall restrictions in place (and enforced) have prevented the financial crisis? The largest originators of MBSs were pure-play investment banks and did not participate in commercial banking. The biggest buyers of those MBSs were, by far, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. No amount of separation of investment and commercial banking would have prevented the crisis.[/QUOTE]
By the 2000s most banks had some form of investment bank, and the ones that didn't still were exposed to the CDOs because they were writing the loans that they shouldn't have, glass-steagle also prevents a bank from acruing so much debt that it could go insolvent. They also issued credit default swaps on everything because they thought nothing would happen, then when it did, everybody scrambled to get their own insurance paid out which dragged down AIG
[QUOTE=Sableye;49791811]By the 2000s most banks had some form of investment bank, and the ones that didn't still were exposed to the CDOs because they were writing the loans that they shouldn't have, glass-steagle also prevents a bank from acruing so much debt that it could go insolvent. They also issued credit default swaps on everything because they thought nothing would happen, then when it did, everybody scrambled to get their own insurance paid out which dragged down AIG[/QUOTE]
I'll grant you the first one, but Glass-Steagall was already being eroded long before its repeal in 1999 anyway. All the repeal did was to allow for the agglomeration of financial institutions, and I'm doubtful that keeping them separate would have significantly reduced the impact of the financial crisis. Also, as far as I know, Glass-Steagall said nothing about capital adequacy ratios. In any case, even if they did, that wouldn't have helped because MBSs and CDOs were being used to move debt off the books of mortgage originators, which would have helped them dodge any restrictions in the first place.
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;49791414]Can you please name the originators of MBSs?[/QUOTE]
Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and Bearn Stearns were the largest issuers of CDOs (probably a better proxy than MBSs for the financial crisis since they were used to sell the MBSs in the first place by repackaging the riskier tranches into "safer" investments). Those CDOs were rated investment-grade by various rating agencies thanks to a magic formula that assumed far less correlation between house prices than reality. In other words, even with Glass-Steagall, any bank could have bought them. And then you have a whole host of other financial innovation products like CDO-squared, CDSs, and synthetic CDOs, all of which helped to amplify the disaster, none of which would have been touched by Glass-Steagall because the law was never written with those in mind.
Did Wall St fuck up? Yes. Would Glass-Steagall have prevented it? No. The proximal cause of the crisis was excessively risky mortgage issuance, encouraged by human greed and affordable homeownership policies, and enabled by the financial innovation that investment banks used to sell their rubbish assets. I'm not a financial regulator so I can't offer ideas on how to fix it, but I can tell you that you're barking up the wrong tree by insisting on Glass-Steagall being brought back.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49792162]I'll grant you the first one, but Glass-Steagall was already being eroded long before its repeal in 1999 anyway. All the repeal did was to allow for the agglomeration of financial institutions, and I'm doubtful that keeping them separate would have significantly reduced the impact of the financial crisis. Also, as far as I know, Glass-Steagall said nothing about capital adequacy ratios. In any case, even if they did, that wouldn't have helped because MBSs and CDOs were being used to move debt off the books of mortgage originators, which would have helped them dodge any restrictions in the first place.
[/QUOTE]
steagall states that commercial banks cannot have more than 10% of its income from securities, once that provision was loosened, MBSs were a gold mine, combined with loosening restrictions on whether a bank can be commercial or investment allowed them to take on huge risk, which glass-steagall was supposed to prevent
[QUOTE=Sableye;49792734]steagall states that commercial banks cannot have more than 10% of its income from securities, once that provision was loosened, MBSs were a gold mine, combined with loosening restrictions on whether a bank can be commercial or investment allowed them to take on huge risk, which glass-steagall was supposed to prevent[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean here. The "income from securities" meant income from underwriting or trading activities. Commercial banks were fully allowed to securitise their assets and to invest in investment-grade securities, which, under the rules of Glass-Steagall, the upper tranches of the MBSs and CDOs would have qualified as.
Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the risk-taking that lead to the financial crisis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
