2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease welcome Paul Krugman to the bottom of the bus!
Krugman, as usual, nails it with his latest column on financial reform. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some highlights.
....
Well, if Wall Streets attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industrys excesses. And thats why theyre doing all they can to elect a Republican.
...
If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isnt likely to happen for a long time.
In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter theyre trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html
But, hey, what does Krugman know anyway? He's just a Nobel winning liberal economist who has been right on virtually everything that happened economically, both in the US and abroad, for the last decade. Under the bus you go!
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Some great Democrats!
djean111
(14,255 posts)I believe she will just tell her donors to "cut it out".
As far as I am concerned, no bus, and I will be sticking with Bernie.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)As shown by the article's third paragraph, which the OP conveniently chose to leave out:
djean111
(14,255 posts)His argument was not worth making, and not worth reading.
IMO, nothing Hillary says can be trusted.
Thanks for posting that excerpt!
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I actually found Krugman's column enlightening, as always. Even when I don't agree with everything he says, he has so much knowledge I come away learning something. I definitely think that you and I are both more skeptical of Hillary's claims to regulate the banking industry than Krugman is, even considering his third paragraph.
My only complaint here--the only person I'd like to "throw under the bus"--is the OP, who presents a nuanced, balanced article with an inflammatory headline that is completely at odds with the piece's spirit and with a misleading edit. It's posts like this that sometimes make the DU experience suck.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)There is absolutely nothing in Hillary's history that would indicate she would take the necessary steps to reign in Wall Street.
Marching in and telling them to "cut it out is a joke.."
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)thanks for pointing that out.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)I would rather not put her to the test!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It's where the party is. I'm currently under the bus talking to Gutierrez about how we will get Sanders to support a pathway to citizenship this time around. Maddow has some interesting thoughts on the topic.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Addressing the specifics of the financial crisis seven years ago is admirable, but it doesn't get at the root of the problem, that the giant banks with their concentration of power and money dictate policy in Washington DC. Sure, Hillary may address yesterday's financial mess, but she won't touch any of the golden gooses Wall Street banks are currently profiting from. You can be sure of that!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)this primary cmapaign seems different to me, there isn't as much mindless rancor as there sometimes is.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Just another straw man, is all that is, here.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If I had to pick one logical fallacy that does the most to degrade the discussions on DU, it would be that one.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)... Who are smarter.
riversedge
(69,719 posts)our eyes on the Republicans! good advice
Blus4u
(608 posts)getting anything done about it won't happen until more control is gained in the legislative branches. Real success at that starts at the state level houses and state governorships.
And we are notoriously bad at that.
Please re-read the last 3 short paragraphs Dan pasted above.
Peace
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)So she doesn't run too far back to the right?
Read the snip at this link http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6030868
To me it sounds as if Krugman has the same fundamental concerns about Hillary that the rest of us have.
1.) Being two faced.
2.) Running to the right once elected.
So yeah I agree with Krugman there.
And having Warren babysitting Clinton? I would be for that.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... and get recaptured? If memory serves, Paul was thrown under the bus some time back.
Baitball Blogger
(46,574 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)... that completely ignores the spirit of the article's concluding sentence?
Also, I find it interesting that the poster chose to remove the article's third paragraph:
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)even though I think it's a good article, and a conversation worth having.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Lots of good liberals under Bernie's bus, its getting crowded.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Must be. Because I haven't seen a single Bernie supporter in this thread doing so.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straw%20man
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Obama has the bus, and even in his 8th year, he's still throwing people under it. I am convinced that Hillary wants to take over after Obama is forcibly retired, so she has a place to stash Bernie and the 75% of the country that supports his candidacy.
But it ain't gonna happen, so you can relax.
On edit: the technical term from psychology is "projection":
According to some research, the projection of one's negative qualities onto others is a common process in everyday life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Romulox
(25,960 posts)waldo.c
(43 posts)I don't think anyone here at DU would denigrate Paul Krugman, (let alone throw him under a bus); he's been a legitimate voice of sanity in an ongoing economic nightmare and has consistently pointed out Republican nefariousness in a variety of circumstance.
At the same time, I don't think he's correct in writing Bernie's strategy off. Bernie has been the (often lone) voice speaking out against the financial homicide that's been extolled by and inflicted on the working and middle class or the US by Republicans since Reagan.
Who can forget Bernie's absolute lambasting of Greenspan in 2009?
(So ironic that Bernie recently protected Andrea Mitchell, Greenspan's wife, from the press crush.)
What about when he grilled Ben Bernanke?
Bernie has been persistently advocating for radical reform of the American financial markets for many years and I believe that he has a strong strategy ready for implementation.
His proposal for a micro tax on the stock market is superb, his adjustment of the cap on Social security absolutely essential, his attack on corporate tax havens long overdue and his targeting of the Kochs, Waltons and Trumps and their ilk, all important. The rich in America will never stop crucifying the working class until they are brought to heel by honest Government.
And that's what you can absolutely depend on from Bernie - crystal clear honesty. Integrity has been his trademark since the 1960's.
Look, I know that everyone at DU desperately wants the best outcome for the Democratic Party's presidential bid.
I believe Bernie Sanders will deliver that outcome. That he has eschewed SuperPac money, and is depending on Americans to support him not only during the election but most importantly, afterwards, so as to achieve his goals clearly demonstrates that he is as politically transparent as a politician can be. He wears his political heart on his sleeve, his integrity is unimpeachable, and he's inviting all Americans to take part in Government. Mr Krugman should have taken that into account.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Krugman isn't writing off Bernie's strategy, he's just saying that Hillary's is better, because she is more focused on the "shadow banking" system which is at the heart of the problem.
But his main point is that either Sanders or Clinton would be strong on financial regulation, and by far the most important thing is electing a Democrat. That seems self-evident to me, but it's not popular sentiments with a certain (large) contingent of DUers.
waldo.c
(43 posts)..and thanks for the welcome
thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)that "major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress" -- meaning that (depressingly) neither the Clinton or Sanders plan is likely to get very far, at least in the near term.
djean111
(14,255 posts)NO, her promise is not credible in the least.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and who largely rely on strawman arguments in lieu of defensible ones
It appears as if the best argument they can muster is that she's better than any rightwingnut.
Wow, let's be scared, shall we?
TygrBright
(20,733 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)Bernie Sanders.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)thesquanderer
(11,954 posts)Why can't a plan include the benefits of reinstating glass-steagall AND the other measures HRC is talking about?
I'd like to see BS go that way... admit HRC has some giid ideas there too, and be willing to include them in his own plan as well. Government is not a place for "NIH" (Not Invented Here) syndrome.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)In that chamber, Sanders cannot win, and even if he wins, cannot change anything.
In that chamber, taking millions from giant banks means you have the better plan to "reign" them in.