Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Cooperation between Republicans and Democrats has become something of a rarity in today's polarized political environment—except when it comes to a select handful of objectives, like enriching Wall Street banks.
In a Twitter thread on Friday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called attention to a massive bank deregulation bill (S.2155) that could reach the Senate floor for a final vote next week, and highlighted the fact that a dozen Democrats are providing crucial support for the measure.
If passed, the legislation—derisively labeled "The Bank Lobbyist Act" by Warren and other critics—would make it more difficult to combat racial discrimination by big banks, provide regulatory relief for more than two dozen of the nation's large financial institutions, and eliminate many consumer protections put into place after the 2008 financial crisis."
Comments
Sucking less is not enough. If Democrats want to win this year, they must unite in support of working people and against Wall Street's casino capitalists. With their full-throated attacks on Trump's aluminum and steel tariffs and some support for his Bank Lobbyist Act, the party of FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama is 0 for 2.
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 7:59pm
Democrats have flipped 39 seats from red to blue so far.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 8:22am
Yes - they have won when running as progressives. But how much good do these Dem wins do if some of them - Claire McCaskill, et al., - support legislation that will make it easier for big banks to discriminate against you and attack Trump for taking action that will preserve some decent jobs for steel and aluminum workers of color?
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 7:57pm
Hal, we are in a Constitutional crisis. Republicans have an authoritarian in the White House and are attempting to make themselves a permanent government. They actively try to suppress votes and overlook police abuse in multiple localities. They have ties to Russia and several countries in the Middle East. The only solution is to vote out as many Republicans possible. That means voting in Democrats be they Centrist or Progressive. Now is not the time for a purity test. I provided you a link with 12 Bernie-backed candidates. Most lost their elections. Your purity test will lead to Republicans remaining in office and make certain that the authoritarian in the White House remains in power.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 9:48am
What do you mean when you use the phrase "purity test"?
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 7:56pm
As a bystander following the arguments between you and RMRD over the years, are you really going to ask that question?
I can argue both of your positions for you if either of you need to step out to take a call or go to lunch.
Just let me know.
by moat on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 8:28pm
If either of them should take you up on it, and you need a bathroom break, I imagine there are any number of us who can take over for you.
by barefooted on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 8:50pm
Strange serendipity, from Mayer's Steele article that I just finished reading and posting: He soon set his sights on becoming the president of the Cambridge Union, the prestigious debating society. It is such a common path for ambitious future leaders that, according to one former member, its motto should be “The Egos Have Landed.” (With the qualifier: my understanding is that they don't do the same debate topic over and over and over, and the debaters may not always totally believe the point that they are advocating, it's a skill thing, about advocacy.)
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 9:07pm
Oh, the point of debate is never whether you believe in your side - it's whether you can argue it successfully. That's why intense research and specific detail derived from it are so highly prized as abilities; even as sloppiness easily leads to ridicule even among your supporters. An argument won on fact and logic, even if totally devoid of any nuance or shades of gray (as real life might demand?) is a winner.
I think I just accidentally described a commenter like Hal ... and why those of us who don't consider opinionated conversation to be cold debate have such a problem with the style.
by barefooted on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 9:29pm
I don't think my arguments are devoid of nuance or shades or gray. I see both sides of lots of issues on which many people here are dogmatic.
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:15pm
What are both sides of an authoritarian, racist man in the White House?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:43pm
Deep-sixing the TPP and the recently announced tariffs are good policy that will lead to better economic outcomes for communities of color and the white working class. What have you ever expressed that is positive about Bernie Sanders? Why doesn't he meet your purity tests?
by HSG on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 7:54am
Refer to our previous discussions.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:00am
Please provide a link to an example of when you have seen both sides of an issue and agreed with the side with which you originally disagreed.
by barefooted on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 11:08pm
The criticism leveled at me is that I don't do nuance not that I never change my mind. Regarding nuance, I expressed ambivalence over which of the two Dems would do better in the 2016 general election. That was a pretty bold stance to take at a time when the supporters of both candidates were insisting - as they still do - that their (wo)man was more electable. In the most popular reader blog here by far, in late March 2016, I discussed the insistence by the "Bernie or Bust" crowd that progressives should commit to write in Bernie or vote for Jill Stein in the general election. While I sympathized with the Bernie or Busters, I concluded that voting against the Republican nominee - even in non-swing states - was more important.
Ultimately, I made up my mind in one case and changed it in the other. I concluded that Bernie was more electable and that Hillary's record and rhetoric were so abysmal that voting third-party was a legitimate response to a truly execrable candidate.
When have you expressed any concerns or doubts about Hillary Clinton or establishment Democrats in general and when have you changed sides? By the way barefooted, I do not mean this to be a confrontational question. I cannot recall all of your posts here and it may well be that you have expressed plenty of nuance and are amenable to reconsider express opinions in the light of new evidence.
by HSG on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:32am
If you don't remember now, what good will it do to repeat so you don't remember (or distort) tomorrow?
[in that magical 89,000 read post of yours, you were actually arguing with Stilli about whether Bernie *actually* promised people unicorns when Stilli said he promised people unicorns. No allowance even for metaphor - this is your brain on mush - makes for a hard, unpleasant slog]
In any case, you've made your point - ad infinitum - that you thought Bernie more electable, that you detest Hillary, that writing in a 3rd party was preferable even if it elected Trump, that for any candidate they have to support your 4 basic tenets of progressivism and that there's no arguing against these. One's trade, I think another's single payer, and I'd probably remember the other 2 if I cared.
So can we move on to discussing the things that are happening now? I guess ignoring the Mueller indictments and subpoenas and effect of different #ParklandShooting & Dreamer & #MeToo & budget & what-not makes it simpler to think that Democrats have to rush to implement your 4 tenets of progressivism, but oddly enough there appears to be some momentum from Republicans shooting (literally?) themselves in the foot, resigning for numerous reasons, and facing criminal investigations, that maybe the Democrats simply have to act sane and *much less* sucky to win.
And of course we have 50 states, and those 50 states have 50 very divergent opinions, so it's hard to see a 1-size-fits-all approach as the winning recipe, as any simple blue state vs. red state breakdown reveals.
Here's a good description of 11 more or less distinct cultural and political regions of the US.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 9:38am
If Democrats win but help Republicans pass the Bank Lobbyists Bill and join with Republicans to repeal tariffs, they'll just lose again in the near future. Moreover, they'll be hurting the American public. I urge the Democrats to pass legislation that benefits us and that makes it more likely that the Democrats will return to dominance. Gun legislation is of crucial importance. I wish the Democrats would keep pushing it.
by HSG on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 10:55am
Your "they'll just lose again..." is meaningless unfounded conjecture. You confuse & conflate opinion, estimate, guess, conjecture, and facts.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:44pm
Hal-lucinating: I urge the Democrats to pass legislation that benefits us and that makes it more likely that the Democrats will return to dominance.
The Democrats cannot "pass legislation", they cannot even get a Senate or House Committee to debate legislation, [much less] get ANY legislation to the floor for a vote. They are the minority Party in both sides of Congress, and Republicans are in control of what legislation is passed.
It is either gross ignorance, malevolence against the minority Party and/or intentional disinformation meant to create apathy among that very large portion of Americans who are have no understanding of how Congress works yet wonder why Democrats don't "pass good stuff for us" to blather nonsense on and on like this, post after post.
by NCD on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 1:02pm
Actually, I described a style of debate and ascribed it to commenters like you. It was not a criticism leveled at you personally. That your rhetorical flourish and tendency toward repetitive, argumentative phrasing in order to engage one or more persons in a back-and-forth of your choosing is a useless way to induce productive dialogue is simply my opinion. Nothing more. That I can certainly see why you chose a radio program and a personal blog to express your opinions in a larger realm than Dagblog with the ability to control the boundaries, even as you use the participants at Dag to flesh them out, is simply my perception. Nothing more.
You do what you do, Hal, and we've all seen it long enough to recognize it clearly and to understand that it's intentional on your part. So it's up to us to do our part if we want to continue the ... what is it again? Oh, yes, commentary. With you. Or not. Nothing more.
by barefooted on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:07pm
There is no winner here. Chasing our tails and spilling digital ink unril one arbitrarily says "I won" and the rest disagree and resume arguing.
Great game - for preschool.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:29am
That's why blog commenters aren't debaters in the true sense of the word; we argue opinion without often being penned in by sticking to just the facts, ma'am. We have moderators, but not ones who judge purely on the veracity of an argument vs the opponent's and assign points 'til the assigned end when a winner is decided. All very cold and analytical. Thank the good lord for small favors that blogs (and real world conversations) don't work that way ... though it does lead to messy tails covered in spilled ink that tend to unendingly chase each other.
by barefooted on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 7:09pm
I am glad that you made this distinction. One inescapable quality of the debate process is that there can only be losers or winners according to the rules of engagement it operates within. And the shape of arguments in that register ask those one struggles against to cry uncle when defeated.
It makes disagreeing with other people an extremely labor intensive enterprise.
by moat on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 7:57pm
Especially when they don't play by the rules.
by barefooted on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:17pm
Well, blogging with AA tends to be more mutual sleuthing, and where there are disagreements, pushes the effort to explain better or find a clearer source.
I can't think of a single person I've persuaded through disagreeing, and it's usually people with similar mindviews latch onto each other, and there it holds. ( unless they too fall away for x or y). Or people find their comfort zones and boundaries and just get along.
Anyway, I like the learning and digging into details and trying to understand real mechanisms and trends - whether agreeable or not, and in 2017 getting a grip on the disagreeable was essential.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:56pm
I just want to know what he considers to be my purity tests and what he means by them. My sense is that when he doesn't want to respond to particular criticisms that I raise in the moment, he mocks them by saying they're purity tests. But maybe he really does have a consistent meaning in mind.
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:09pm
Review our previous discussions.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:44pm
As a witness to the debate, I do not understand what you do not understand. Generally speaking, your two positions are as follows:
HSG: Democrats (and left leaning Independents) need to promote candidates who proclaim a progressive agenda (according to my descriptions of what that is) and to remove support for candidates who do not. Otherwise, the party has no future appeal as an alternative to Republicans.
RMRD: Democrats cannot afford to make the platform they stand on too narrow or they will be defeated by the Republicans.
So there you have it. All the arguments and questions about what either of you mean are framed in the context of those two positions. The references to "purity tests" are simply a description of the selection process you advocate for so strenuously. Why not just own that and carry on?
by moat on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 11:21am
I think you just created a new meme - TS;DR (too short; didn't read)
But nice try.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:45pm
Maybe you are right. The silence is pretty deafening.
Or, taking a more positive view, maybe I have solved the problem and the matter will never come up again.
by moat on Wed, 03/07/2018 - 4:00pm
Here's the most optimistic man on the Internets...
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/07/2018 - 4:53pm
maybe I have solved the problem
Hah! Got me thinking, though: dream on, not going to happen, as what usually seems to happen is one of the sides finds a news article that serves as shaky bias confirmation, even unconsciously at times. and then after a few comments, it's let the polemics begin.
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/07/2018 - 8:36pm
Democrats have flipped 39 seats from red to blue so far.
Yes - they have won when running as progressives.
I'll admit that I don't get deep into the details of every house race in states I don't live in and can't vote in. I doubt that any of us do that here. But I've generally been following all these special elections and from my casual reading most don't seem to be strikingly progressive. Most seem to be centrists or center left.
I doubt that you have looked deeply at all these special elections either. I think you start with a premise: Democrats win when they run progressive candidates. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Centrists have won in more conservative states and center left candidates have won in bluer states. Progressives have lost. I don't see any clear trend for progressives winning over center or center left candidates.
You then claim that the seats that have flipped flipped because the candidates ran as progressives. I don't think you've proved that either. I doubt that you have even looked deeply enough to know. You just offer it up to support your main premise, that progressive candidates win. it's an ideological position you hold without evidence and then twist or make up evidence to support it.
I think seats have been flipped in these special elections because democrats are motivated to get out and vote, mostly due to dislike of Trump. In election after election I've been reading articles about the surge in democrats voting in these special election. In far greater numbers than in past special elections. At times as high as midterm elections which is unusual for off year voting. My guess is the policy positions of these candidates is secondary. Democrats are pissed, they're motivated to get out and vote, and of course they're voting for democrats.
There seems to be some polling data that leads me to believe the democratic party is moving left. But I doubt that's the cause of seats flipping. Democrats motivated enough to get out and vote seems to be the largest factor.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 11:51pm
I think you'd probably enjoy this WaPo piece I just read,oceankat, it's riffing along the lines of what you're talking about, but taking it to another level, of the primaries where there's so many people running for seats, and they run the gamut from the center to the far left running, and the problems that are coming from that. The headline is inaccurate,as it's not just about Texas, while reporting from Houston, they bounce around to examples in CA, VA, etc.:
Texas kicks off crowded Democratic primary with enthusiasm and meddling
By David Weigel & Sean Sullivan, March 5 at 7:41 PM
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 1:39am
Hal-lucinating!!... " If passed, the legislation...—would make it more difficult to combat racial discrimination by big banks"
Not true. Why?
The rule being, reporting expanded customer personal data.....depends on the # of mortgages a bank gives, AND whether it should be 100 or 500 before the rule kicks in.
It has never yet gone into affect.
The rule will definitely apply to the big mortgage issuers who provide 90% or more of mortgages and home equity lines of credit in the nation, and is not at all changed by this Bill.
by NCD on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 11:29am
Wha? It took me several passes through the Ballard Spahr commentary to understand your point. I suppose it is that the banks aren't now reporting lending data based on race so who cares if they aren't required to in the future. Okay, maybe that's a legitimate point. On the another hand, I'm disinclined to credit the opinion of banking legislation offered by an international law firm that counts major banks among its clients.
by HSG on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 8:13pm
Hal you are disinclined to believe any fact that doesn't fit into your ideological box. As AA has noted.
The question is whether to set the bar at 100 mortgages a year or 500. Any bank over 500 mortgages (big bank) the reporting is mandatory.
by NCD on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 11:07pm
I am disinclined to accept at face value "facts" asserted by individuals or groups who have a financial stake in persuading me and others of the veracity of said "facts" regardless of whether they are in fact facts.
by HSG on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 8:35am
Hal, you might be interested to know that Tillerson’s State Department has spent none of the $120million allocated by Congress to counter Russian intervention.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/state-department-russian-meddling_us_5a9cb149e4b089ec353bc61e
Our country is under a cyberattack and you remain silent on the issue. You only attack Democrats who don’t pass your purity test. Most who could pass your purity test lose their elections. You apparently don’t care about the suffering caused by Republicans.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 12:01pm
If the Democrats are going to debate this proposal, I hope they counter the point made by the sponsors of the bill that the Federal Reserve can swoop in to "investigate any of these banks at anytime" with the observation that the proposal to cut the Consumer Protection Bureau to the bone removes a lot of the sugar added to make sure the medicine goes down.
As for the horse race speculation concerning all these sudden occurrences, isn't it a little early to be making wagers upon them?
by moat on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 2:49pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 4:35pm
Your account does not square with the report's finding that:
Where did you get your information?
by moat on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 6:37pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 8:39pm
You didn't answer my question.
by moat on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 9:00pm
by Peter (not verified) on Mon, 03/05/2018 - 10:15pm
Usually one provides a URL, much simpler than a paragraph of pontificating.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:38am
by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 1:14am
Well that's arrogant bullshit - just provide the fucking URL so they can decide for themselves, and cut the pomposity.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 1:25am
Okay, I found Mulvaney's letter.
So he is not talking about a surplus but a reserve fund that he says is too large. His reasoning for shrinking the reserve is circular:
Seeing as how Mulvaney is the one making these requests with the express purpose of drowning the Bureau in the bath tub, referring to how quickly he could get money if he asked for it is humorous.
by moat on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 10:29am
by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 03/07/2018 - 10:09am
Victory in sight for Democrats defying Warren on bank bill
For the bill’s supporters, the legislation is a chance to show voters that it’s still possible to get things done in an often paralyzed Congress.
By Zachary Warmbrodt @ Politico.com, March 5
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/06/2018 - 12:26am