The 17 Democrats selling out on bank regulation is worse than it looks

[Filliam H. Muffman]

VOX story on how Dem's are allowing Dodd-Frank to be gutted.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/6/17086452/democrats-dodd-frank

[vision63]

Categorically, the Democrats are opposed to this. Your premise is flawed. At least the story mentions that.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Then why aren't they going to vote against it? They are giving the Republicans cough*lobbyists*cough everything they want and getting nothing in return. What part of my premise is flawed, that they are arguing about how much of a giveaway it is?

[deckeda]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
Then why aren't they going to vote against it? They are giving the Republicans cough*lobbyists*cough everything they want and getting nothing in return. What part of my premise is flawed, that they are arguing about how much of a giveaway it is?

This.

I don't care what anyone SAYS. I care about what they DO. Rhetoric vs. action. I also recall the very same criticism being applied repeatedly in this forum about a Senator from Vermont.

I have no problem with some moderates voting with the opposition party; that's how compromise is supposed to work in this country. What's troubling is that Congress rushed to help out banks, who as far as I can tell are not hurting, and for what? Because it was Tuesday and they nothing better to do regarding gun laws, immigration, or pretty much ANYTHING else this week?

[Filliam H. Muffman]

And they passed it, with sixteen Democrats voting for it.

[vision63]

deckeda wrote:
[quote=Filliam H. Muffman]
Then why aren't they going to vote against it? They are giving the Republicans cough*lobbyists*cough everything they want and getting nothing in return. What part of my premise is flawed, that they are arguing about how much of a giveaway it is?

This.

I don't care what anyone SAYS. I care about what they DO. Rhetoric vs. action. I also recall the very same criticism being applied repeatedly in this forum about a Senator from Vermont.

I have no problem with some moderates voting with the opposition party; that's how compromise is supposed to work in this country. What's troubling is that Congress rushed to help out banks, who as far as I can tell are not hurting, and for what? Because it was Tuesday and they nothing better to do regarding gun laws, immigration, or pretty much ANYTHING else this week?
You know what? Do you even have a right to complain? Democratic leadership doesn't support this. But you FHM talk as if they do.

I voted for Hillary Clinton. She pledged to not only support Dodd Frank but to strengthen it. I not only supported her I enthusiastically did so because I know without a doubt that we have moderate Dems in conservative districts and I wanted to avoid messes just like this. History didn't start today. Elections have consequences and the only productive thing on your agenda should be helping Democrats seize power moving forward.

[Rick-o]

What is FHM? Is it some kind of insult? :dunno:

[Filliam H. Muffman]

Oh snap, the leadership doesn't support it. :RollingEyesSmiley5:

What is Clinton doing to defeat this legislation? What good did your vote for a compromised politician do?

[vision63]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
Oh snap, the leadership doesn't support it. :RollingEyesSmiley5:

What is Clinton doing to defeat this legislation? What good did your vote for a compromised politician do?

You didn't vote for her times all the rest of the Bernie or Buster's. That act alone negates anything you have to say. I just told you what your job is moving forward. Get to work.

[vision63]

Rick-o wrote:
What is FHM? Is it some kind of insult? :dunno:

An acronym