Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

 daedalus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

Depends on who you bank with. Basically what Trump did was deregulate "smaller" (under $250bn in assets) and community banks and credit unions. I completely agree that banks of different types and sizes should be subject to slightly different regulations and that small banks/credit unions should be regulated the same way as giant national/international banks but this doesn't replace illfitting regulation with good regulation it just removes regulation completely. Operating costs for smaller banks are now lower which should hopefully be passed on to lower customer fees but it is also now easier for smaller banks to overextend themselves and make terrible decisions.

We've been round this circus twice before. Remember the Savings and Loan disaster of the Reagan years?

The Global Triumph of Capitalism in 2008 was S&L2. Now we are relaxing the regulations to set ourselves up for S&L3.

Presumably the economic rationale for the new rules is that it pees on something Obama did.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

Depends on who you bank with. Basically what Trump did was deregulate "smaller" (under $250bn in assets) and community banks and credit unions. I completely agree that banks of different types and sizes should be subject to slightly different regulations and that small banks/credit unions should be regulated the same way as giant national/international banks but this doesn't replace illfitting regulation with good regulation it just removes regulation completely. Operating costs for smaller banks are now lower which should hopefully be passed on to lower customer fees but it is also now easier for smaller banks to overextend themselves and make terrible decisions.

Am I correct that "smaller" means any bank outside of the top 9? I want to make sure I understand.

I'm basing that question on this: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/

 daedalus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

I have been expecting it since he was elected.

The Auld Grump - gosh, that would be really stupid, and only an idiot would... Oh, Hi Donald....

Prestor Jon wrote:


Operating costs for smaller banks are now lower which should hopefully be passed on to lower customer fees

That is the theory. Just like "business tax cuts go back to the employees as wage increases" was another recent theory.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

I have been expecting it since he was elected.

The Auld Grump - gosh, that would be really stupid, and only an idiot would... Oh, Hi Donald....

Trump is not the problem any more than 50 Republicans and 16 democrats (12 of which helped write the damn changes themselves) are. I don't presume to know how anyone else would have handled this, but I suspect this outcome was inevitable.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/s54

My current solution is "guillotines". Most people have problems with that. I can understand that, and so have been patiently waiting for a better solution. I shall continue to wait.

EDIT: I might have an attitude problem today. Corrected.

Yes, the Dems helped out on this one.

Yeah, it was interesting how Trump even thanked Democrats for helping...then invites none to the signing, which ia probably good for those Democrats given the likely inevitable scapegoat this legislation will become, correctly or not.

 daedalus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trump signs rollback of Dodd-Frank, having learned nothing from 2008

This may work out for me, I'd love to see a new housing bubble crash personally, maybe then I could afford a condo

Is this actually worrying anyone else?

Depends on who you bank with. Basically what Trump did was deregulate "smaller" (under $250bn in assets) and community banks and credit unions. I completely agree that banks of different types and sizes should be subject to slightly different regulations and that small banks/credit unions should be regulated the same way as giant national/international banks but this doesn't replace illfitting regulation with good regulation it just removes regulation completely. Operating costs for smaller banks are now lower which should hopefully be passed on to lower customer fees but it is also now easier for smaller banks to overextend themselves and make terrible decisions.

Am I correct that "smaller" means any bank outside of the top 9? I want to make sure I understand.

I'm basing that question on this: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/

According to the article smaller is any bank with less than $250 billion in assets. It’s been too long of a day for me to figure out the conversions from the link you posted but I’m going to guess that yes that means they deregulated every bank smaller than the top nine.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@sebster

What do I think? I think it's the worst corrupted mess to strike the USA since General Grant was President.

There were problems with corruption by others in Grant's presidency, but they were later overblown for political reasons. It was certainly not the defining feature of Grant's presidency.

And if the American people have any sense, Trump will get run out of Washington next POTUS election.

I reacted against Comey's statement that it should be up to the American people, not Mueller, to remove Trump from power. But more and more I'm seeing what Comey was getting at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
sebster: I felt uncomfortable reading that, because as you say it is verging into conspiracy theory territory. However, I would not be surprised to have something like that confirmed as things unfold. Seems Cohen was pretty stupid in how he handled everything so it's likely the prosecution will have a lot of information to work with.

Yeah, it is pretty conspiracy theory. Any time it's relying on events being a day or two apart to build the narrative, I get more than a little wary. However, it makes a lot more sense than the existing explanation. So I dunno.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Probably true and completely meaningless. It's exactly the sort of thing you'd expect Trump to have done, but that's kind of the problem. It's all been done before. Trump's rich friends will continue to ignore the corruption, the religious right will find a way to excuse the abortion with "we're all sinners" or whatever other nonsense is required, and the people who will care about it already hate Trump anyway. We're so far into scandal fatigue with Trump that a mere dispute over paying off his mistress is probably going to be forgotten by the end of the week when the next scandal is announced.

Very true. It's leading me to believe that when we learn what Mueller has, even if it is a plain as day case that Trump actively co-ordinated with Russia, it won't matter to the Trump/Republican base. This won't be resolved by convincing Trump/Republican voters of Trump's crimes. That is a dynamic of ordinary, functioning democracy that doesn't exist in America right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also...here's Trump's letter to Kim, The tone and language reads like a mix between "Mean Girls" and "Sarcastic South Park Comcast Employee" drowned in passive-aggressiveness

When Trump sent that letter there were US journalists in North Korea, there to view the demolition of the North Korean nuclear site. A functioning head of state brings prime targets out of the country before doing anything like that letter.

wonder what they're gonna do with those challenge coins...

If they turn up on ebay I'm gonna go hard to get me one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Meanwhile Bush's (and others) admin actually got NK to the table to no long term avail but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good rally amiright.

Clinton got NK to the table. They even got a deal, which fell apart during the Bush administration (not blaming Bush, NK did plenty to sabotage the deal).

Bigger point is bringing NK 'to the table' is no achievement, never was. NK wants talks. NK has two basic foreign policy aims - greater international prestige and extorting stuff from China and America. Sitting down with America for talks is a big part of both, and if they can get an American president to be in those talks its like a dream come true.

That's why before Trump the US position was no talks without clear disarmament commitments from NK, and certainly no talks with a US president without some a long list of major commitments. But with Trump he had a conversation with SK president Moon, who gave a rose coloured representation of the NK position, then 45 minutes later, with no advice from the State Dept, Trump announced he would talk to Kim. Trump conceding a major bargaining chip based on what one person told him another person was saying.

Pretty shocked it hasn't worked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Thing is, those who know, know that he's already an economic failure. On the other hand, his tax plans and economic "stuff" has done exactly what he's wanted it to: made people like him even richer. The majority of people who are claiming anything he's done as a success are his typical voter base: uneducated as feth, and brainwashed by the right-wing propaganda circuit

Yep. For all his talk of growing jobs, they're growing slower than Obama's last five years in office. That isn't Trump's fault, the economy is leveling off, but it should make clear to people that a lot of economic activity is beyond the control of any president. Meanwhile, Trump did claim that the cut to corporate taxes were great because they'd drive up wages, yet wage growth just took a sudden turn for stagnation, which is almost impossible to understand in an economy nearing full capacity.

The net result of all that is basically all Trump has done is inherit an economy reaching peak activity, then pass a tax cut that means even in the best economic times the US has an unsustainable deficit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Nobody is entitled to use the media platforms of private businesses for their personal speech.

I'm not talking about entitlement. I'm not talking about what everyone must be entitled to receive regardless of how they choose to use it. I'm talking about a society that understands that free speech is more than just what government can and can't take away.

I didn't object to the player protests but the NFL exercising their authority to try to eliminate them isn't unreasonable or unjust.

I would agree the NFL's decision is reasonable, but it is unjust.

The NFL's policy is clearly a PR move.

Absolutely. And the reality is that PR will always operate to favour the most economically powerful, because they are the ones companies can least afford to offend. In this instance Trump and Pence whooped up the base to get angry at NFL players who were attempting a protest, the base followed along, and the NFL conceded.

And of course, Kaepernik isn't playing, isn't getting paid, despite recognition by the NFL that he's a starting QB. In that context, talking purely about the legality of the NFL's actions seems to be missing the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Depends on who you bank with. Basically what Trump did was deregulate "smaller" (under $250bn in assets) and community banks and credit unions. I completely agree that banks of different types and sizes should be subject to slightly different regulations and that small banks/credit unions should be regulated the same way as giant national/international banks but this doesn't replace illfitting regulation with good regulation it just removes regulation completely. Operating costs for smaller banks are now lower which should hopefully be passed on to lower customer fees but it is also now easier for smaller banks to overextend themselves and make terrible decisions.

It's true that smaller banks need different regulation. The problem is in part like you say that this isn't different regulation but no regulation at all. The second problem is that Dodd Frank was a pretty bare minimum set of regs already. What was needed wasn't less regs for smaller banks, but must tighter regs for bigger banks.

I know a lot of people just hate the idea of regulations and are certain there's always lots too many regs doing all sorts of bad stuff, but end of the day Australia has strong regs on its banks, and when the GFC wiped out trillions in the US and Europe, Australia carried on booming. In fact just recently we managed to reach the longest period in world history without a recession. Now I'm not just bragging about Australia, claiming we'll never have a recession or claiming our banking sector incredible*, I'm just pointing out that effective fin sector regulation is really important to overall economic stability.

But of course, the banking sector has lots of money and a remarkable level of confidence in their own ability to ride out economic crashes, so they will pay huge amounts to congressmen to dismantle regs. And then look what keeps happening.




*Right now we have a Royal Commission in to the sector which is revealing some shocking practices.

 Ouze wrote:


Some positive Trump news for a change:

Trump pardoned Jack Johnson.

*checks internet*





..jeepers.

Yeah. That one is a wowzer @_@

The DoJ briefings have happened. Paul Ryan attended the first, but turned down the second because he had a fundraiser to attend. Which would be a really weird choice for the leader of a legislative house, when facing a briefing about the most controversial act of investigative over-reach in US history. Unless Donald was lying and there wasn't actually a spy placed in the Trump campaign for political benefit. But surely a sitting US president wouldn't just lie like that.

Meanwhile Emmet Flood, the White House attorney assigned to the Mueller investigation attended both meetings. So did John Kelly. Because this is really about finding an in-road in the Mueller investigation and what they have on Trump and his staff, and no-one is even pretending it is about anything else.

I look forward to seeing the narrative Republicans invent in the next 24 hours to try and justify this whole production and find some way of throwing shade on the Mueller investigation. But meanwhile its quite telling that Adam Schiff left the room and was immediately able to state that nothing showed any attempt to place a spy in the Trump campaign or broke any procedures during their investigation, while Republicans have gone quiet searching for the best way to frame what they were told.

 reds8n wrote:


..jeepers.

Yeah, that Eric Garland dude is weird. I've seen him pop up on my twitter feed a lot because some people I follow will sometimes comment on his tweets. He's a pretty good reminder that the left has more than a healthy dose of crazy of its own, and the gatekeepers and the greater party should fight to make sure that stuff always stays on the fringes.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. That one is a wowzer @_@

Trump did it because Obama considered the case and refused a pardon (on the grounds that this boxer was also a wife beater.)

In other words, it's just another standard Trump anti-Obama move.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Meanwhile Bush's (and others) admin actually got NK to the table to no long term avail but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good rally amiright.

Clinton got NK to the table. They even got a deal, which fell apart during the Bush administration (not blaming Bush, NK did plenty to sabotage the deal).

Bigger point is bringing NK 'to the table' is no achievement, never was. NK wants talks. NK has two basic foreign policy aims - greater international prestige and extorting stuff from China and America. Sitting down with America for talks is a big part of both, and if they can get an American president to be in those talks its like a dream come true.

That's why before Trump the US position was no talks without clear disarmament commitments from NK, and certainly no talks with a US president without some a long list of major commitments. But with Trump he had a conversation with SK president Moon, who gave a rose coloured representation of the NK position, then 45 minutes later, with no advice from the State Dept, Trump announced he would talk to Kim. Trump conceding a major bargaining chip based on what one person told him another person was saying.

Pretty shocked it hasn't worked out.

Yeah, my age is coming through a bit referring to Clinton as "others". Its just amazing how quickly the right was willing to throw history overboard and run with 'historic' to throw Trump a bone. We're talking about a man who's plan it was to wing it when the 12th came around. Sure, it would have been historical, but the historical we got used to under Trump, as in rock bottom's basement.

Kim played it pretty well. He has nukes now and defused the situation of a year ago. And I assume a bit of sucking up to Trump by Kim will let Kim do this whole show over again if it gets a bit heated.

The more Trump tries to defuse the Mueller investigation the more it makes me feel there must be some real dirt for Trump to want to hide.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah. That one is a wowzer @_@

Trump did it because Obama considered the case and refused a pardon (on the grounds that this boxer was also a wife beater.)

In other words, it's just another standard Trump anti-Obama move.

That and the next time someone points out how racist the guy is everyone one will just point out how he pardoned that dead guy who probably could have used justice a long time before now and can't really use any now. But hey as long as the dead are getting their due, feth the living right


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The more Trump tries to defuse the Mueller investigation the more it makes me feel there must be some real dirt for Trump to want to hide.

Meh. I'd agree if discrediting the investigation into alleged malfeasance wasn't Law 101. This is what every powerful person being investigated for things does, regardless of guilt. It's an essential tactic to maintaining your public image amongst a busy/disinterested/idiotic populace with an attention span to short to remember their own week let alone whatever you supposed did last year.

 sebster wrote:
For all his talk of growing jobs, they're growing slower than Obama's last five years in office. That isn't Trump's fault, the economy is leveling off, but it should make clear to people that a lot of economic activity is beyond the control of any president. Meanwhile, Trump did claim that the cut to corporate taxes were great because they'd drive up wages, yet wage growth just took a sudden turn for stagnation, which is almost impossible to understand in an economy nearing full capacity.

The net result of all that is basically all Trump has done is inherit an economy reaching peak activity, then pass a tax cut that means even in the best economic times the US has an unsustainable deficit.

This is where your hateful, left wing-bias really comes through. If it weren't for that tax cut, American companies wouldn't have been able to increase wages for their workers and invest the way they have.

#maga

Right, what is ICE doing? Can anyone explain this in a way that doesn't make it sound like Auschwitz 2.0 in the making?

https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/999827396046995456?s=19

Crispy78 wrote:
Right, what is ICE doing? Can anyone explain this in a way that doesn't make it sound like Auschwitz 2.0 in the making?

I think that's a fairly odious comparison.

The story from a month ago.

 Ouze wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Right, what is ICE doing? Can anyone explain this in a way that doesn't make it sound like Auschwitz 2.0 in the making?

I think that's a fairly odious comparison.

The story from a month ago.

Why are ICE actively separating migrant children from their families in the first place?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-separates-18-month-old-mother-months

I don't think they should be. It's a terrible, cruel, awful policy that makes no sense on functionally any level.

And why are they petitioning to be allowed to destroy their records of deaths, sexual abuse, etc?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-plans-start-destroying-records-immigrant

If you're hoping to steer me into agreeing that the US government is trying to herd immigrant children into death camps, then I'm going to disappoint you.

Crispy78 wrote:
And why are they petitioning to be allowed to destroy their records of deaths, sexual abuse, etc?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-plans-start-destroying-records-immigrant

Under Obama they had a policy of keeping their records on record.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
And why are they petitioning to be allowed to destroy their records of deaths, sexual abuse, etc?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-plans-start-destroying-records-immigrant

Under Obama they had a policy of keeping their records on record.

Crispy78 wrote:
And why are they petitioning to be allowed to destroy their records of deaths, sexual abuse, etc?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/ice-plans-start-destroying-records-immigrant

I'll take this one since I work in this field, albeit for another agency.

All Federal documents have a limited lifespan due to the sheer volume of them. Some are retained longer than others, based on their presumed value. What ICE is asking NARA for is to reduce the time that these records will be retained, not to start shredding at once. That said, I'm not sure how they decided these numbers, which seem pretty small. Social Security, by comparison, retains documents for up to 300 years, which translates into a gigantic storage and maintenance problem.

The sort of timescale they're proposing suggests to me that they want to hamper anyone coming back as an adult and pressing charges about what happened to them as a child. 20 year retention feels far too short.

 Ouze wrote:
If you're hoping to steer me into agreeing that the US government is trying to herd immigrant children into death camps, then I'm going to disappoint you.

Will you deny that it's already done that once before with Native Children?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/army-begins-unearthing-remains-of-children-killed-at-carlisle-indian-school-20170808.html

https://www.indianz.com/News/2013/09/05/native-sun-news-death-rate-cov.asp