Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

All about that executive order 66.

I'm not totally sold on Warren as VP but it would go a long ways towards mending fences between the Sanders and Clinton camps. Plus breaking both of those boundaries would be cool. Still would prefer Perez but I wouldn't be unhappy with Warren.

Although it would be hilarious if the fringe left turned its thing into "You thought Clinton being a secret Republican was bad, her VP was a FORMER Republican!"

Warren brings nothing to the ticket. North-East? just two years apart from Hillary? Same generation?

Clinton needs a younger VEEP who is not a Boomer. The party needs to groom its next generation of leaders

 

[Trouble]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ppppolls/status/729796869224804358

Oh god the tweets that proceeded that.

Nonstop calls and emails about Gary Johnson today after we already announced last week we were going to include him in polls (1 of 2)

Libertarians, please show some social skills and get your people to stop bugging us or we will take him right back out of the polls (2 of 2)

 

[Aaron Strife]

Her options for someone younger though are pretty limited.

Booker would leave his Senate seat open and appointed by Christie, but that's true for Warren as well.

Gillibrand? Same state.

Harris? Running for Senate.

Castro? LOL

Unless she nominates someone from the House I think her VP is gonna skew older. Perez at 54 is about the youngest I see it getting. Bennet's even younger but I get the feeling he's a bit of a long shot.

 

[pigeon]

It makes sense if you have excess cash and need to reduce debt. We don't.

The price of bonds out there will drop if interest rates rise. If you're looking at some kind of liability management exercise, you could repurchase at 96 or 94 depending on the tenor and coupon. But if you need to finance the purchase of those bonds with NEW BONDS

OMG trump!!!

Matt Levine said we could do the on the run/off the run trade with T-bills and make the Federal Reserve a fortune which it could use to further enslave us. Since you are a big shot banker maybe you know if this would work.

 

[Macho Madness]

Man that general election pivot to the right for Hillary is totally happening

Sahil Kapur – Verified account ‏@sahilkapur

Clinton has supported a public option for a while; today she floated a Medicare buy-in as one way of getting there. http://bloom.bg/1T7DPTD

Oh

 

[smurfx]

“It won’t be until after he is elected but before he’s inaugurated that he will figure out exactly what he is going to do and who he is going to try to hire.

DYING INTERNALLY

so what exactly are the debates going to look like? clinton giving long answers and trump throwing out one liners? is it going to look like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs2zgCSsKIE

 

[Macho Madness]

Man that general election pivot to the right for Hillary is totally happening




Oh

ONE OF THESE DAYS SHE'S GOING TO DO IT

 

[shinra-bansho]

Wut about Nina Turner?! She's young, Aaron.

 

[sc0la]

Man that general election pivot to the right for Hillary is totally happening




Oh

Medicare Part E

The E is for everyone.

I don't know why this wasn't in the ACA as a public option.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Man that general election pivot to the right for Hillary is totally happening




Oh

I don't think it's super likely this would happen, but it'd be great if Clinton could get a public option as well as opening Medicare to people ages 55 and up. That was floated as an alternative to the public option back in 2010, when Lieberman predictably shitcanned the idea after Gore ran on it in 2000.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Wut about Nina Turner?!

Wot about Tulsi Gabbard?

 

[Suikoguy]

Medicare Part E

The E is for everyone.

I don't know why this wasn't in the ACA as a public option.

Blue Dog Dems.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Wut about Nina Turner?! She's young, Aaron.

Who

 

[Y2Kev]

She sings proud Mary

 

[sc0la]

Blue Dog Dems.

That was rhetorical. I knew why.


It should be noted that it saved none of them. They could have made the future a better place while losing their seats instead of just being shit.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I think Bernie is allowing his campaign to grow so extreme and drawn out that I think it'll now be a lot easier to peel off support once the primary is over.

The VP should definitely be used to groom the next up-an-coming.

A Clinton using the VP spot to groom the next-up candidate. What could go wrong?

Spoiler

 

[eBay Huckster]

Who

tfw she was my state senator for 6 years and this is still my reaction

 

[VendettaRed07]

Does Kerry stay on as SoS?

if not who replaces him?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

TPC found that the average tax burden would increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average amount of benefits would increase by more than $13,000. As a result, households would on average receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under Sanders’s proposals, TPC said.

Households in the bottom fifth of income would on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000, and those in the middle fifth of income would have an average gain of about $8,500. Those in the top 5 percent of income would see a net loss of about $111,000, TPC said.

“We have never seen a proposal as progressive” as Sanders’s, Burman said.

While most people would get a net benefit from Sanders’s proposals, the revenue that his tax plan would raise “would fall far short of paying for the new spending programs,” TPC said. The single-payer healthcare proposal itself would cost almost twice as much as Sanders’s tax plan would raise.

Sanders’s proposals would raise federal deficits by about $18 trillion over the next 10 years, and would increase the deficit by about $21 trillion when net interest is taken into account, TPC said.

“The ultimate distribution of benefits under the plan would depend upon whether the government financed that deficit through tax increases, spending cuts, increased borrowing, or some combination of these options,” TPC said. “A plan substantially financed by borrowing could raise interest rates and impose a substantial drag on the economy.”

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/279201-study-most-would-see-net-benefits-from-sanderss-proposals

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Full remarks from Loretta Lynch on HB2

This woman needs to be a SC Justice.

 

[Suikoguy]

18 trillion is basically doubling our current total debt in 10 years.

...

 

[User 463088]

Does Kerry stay on as SoS?

if not who replaces him?

He's 72. I think....I think he'll retire. I wouldn't mind if he stayed on. I know State was a job he wanted for a while. He's been good in it too.

Also, work phone is not private phone. Remember that people.

 

[Mrs. Manky]

tfw she was my state senator for 6 years and this is still my reaction

She is also the least embarrassing of Bernie's surrogates. Choosing her could help with healing the rift.

And she's a black woman.

 

[Armaros]

18 trillion is basically doubling our current total debt in 10 years.

...

We haven't even added the cost of free college, or the hit to the economy by breaking up the banks.

 

[hawk2025]

We haven't even added the cost of free college, or the hit to the economy by breaking up the banks.

And, of course, auditing the FED, lest we forget, which would have a significant negative impact on the FED's credibility.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The Sanders plan would shift costs away from employers — which currently provide 154 million Americans with insurance — and onto the government. Both Sanders and the Urban Institute agree this to be the case.

Where they differ, however, is on how much money they think the government would end up spending. The Urban Institute estimates that three main factors would significantly raise government health care spending:

-Millions more Americans would get insurance. The Affordable Care Act extended coverage to millions of Americans — but it also left millions uninsured, including undocumented workers and those who still couldn't afford coverage. The Urban Institute estimates the Sanders plan extends coverage to an additional 28.3 million Americans (this includes undocumented workers, although the Sanders campaign has not specifically commented on where that population would fall in its proposal).

-Americans would use more health care if they didn't face financial barriers. When copays and deductibles drop, patients tend to go to the doctor more. And that could be a good thing, signaling that people are getting care they need but couldn't previously afford. The Urban Institute used data from Medicaid — the public program that covers low-income Americans, where patients rarely face any fees for using health care — to estimate how demand for health care would increase.

-The Sanders plan covers an expensive service that most insurance plans don't. That service is long-term care, for those who need medical care that can last weeks or months. Right now, Americans can purchase private long-term care benefits, but few do. UI estimates that this program would cost $4.1 trillion over a decade.

Taken together, the Urban Institute argues that these and other changes would create a health care system that is significantly more expensive than what the Sanders campaign has estimated.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11640292/sanders-single-payer-urban-institute

 

[Yellowtail]

Does Kerry stay on as SoS?

if not who replaces him?

Probably Samantha Power. I don't think she'll want to relitigate Benghazi by picking Rice.

Gary Locke would be a really great choice.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Xavier Becerra is being talked up by some as a potential Clinton running mate.


How do you guys feel about him?

 

[ampere]

Now that's a damn good speech. Still can't believe the federal govt. just outright said they're gonna fight for transgender rights. That is huge.

Just got around to reading that. She compares it to Jim Crow... damn right. This is Obama's America and that shit don't fly.

Loretta is making me proud of this country.

Wut about Nina Turner?! She's young, Aaron.

Are you doing a sarcasms

 

[thcsquad]

Except Illinois isn't on the "end" - they don't even have a progressive income tax system. I mean, Connecticut's actually a better state to point too if you want to find a "tax and spend" state, but even then, because of balanced budget requirements, it's actually really hard to find states that are uberliberal on taxation.

I wanted to go back and comment on this, and I see you are already touched on it. As an Illinois resident, I see the BS about high taxes in IL brought out all the time. IL has a low flat income tax; 3.75% now, and even after Pat Quinn's 'hike' it was still only 5%.

Illinois' problem is that it spends like a blue state but taxes like a red state.

Illinoisans do pay too much in property taxes. At least in the Chicago suburbs they do (Chicago itself and downstate have more reasonable residential property tax rates). But this, of course, isn't collected by the state, or generally even Democrats at all. Rich suburbs fleece their residents by charging the highest property tax rates in the nation, and so now adding on even the relatively small state income tax seems like a huge burden. So the state, which needs the money for its pensions, can't collect it without overburdening residents.

My grand bargain idea to fix Illinois' finances is one bill/constitutional amendment that both freezes property taxes (Rauner will love it!) and institutes a progressive income tax. It will be initially set to Wisconsin's rates (4 up to 7.65), so if anyone tries to blame the high income taxes on Democrats we can point across the border.

 

[East Lake]

We haven't even added the cost of free college, or the hit to the economy by breaking up the banks.

Banks that received massive bailouts and profits for producing fictional income.*

 

[Suikoguy]

We haven't even added the cost of free college, or the hit to the economy by breaking up the banks.

The 2015 Deficit was 438 Billion.
18 Trillion / 10 = 1.8 Trillion per Year + .43 Trillion = 2.26 Trillion a Year Deficit.

That would put the US Debt to GDP ratio in the same ballpark as Japan and Greece after 10 years.

That's not including the interest rates that would go up. To make that sustainable, you would have to increase taxes to make up a majority portion of that.

 

[User1608]

Full remarks from Loretta Lynch on HB2

Damn, this touches me...;_; thank you Loretta and Obama.

 

[royalan]

Haven't the banks paid back the loans given to them via the bailout?

EDIT: Oops, top of page. Buy Hard Choices, audio book bite available on Audible!

 

[JesseEwiak]

Banks that received massive bailouts and profits for producing fictional income.*

You're aware that the CEO's won't be hurt by any changes to banks, right? It'll be loan officers in Toldeo and tellers in Albany who will lose their jobs, not the asshole Ryan Gosling character from The Big Short.

Haven't the banks paid back the labs given to then via the bailout?

At a profit, even.

 

[studyguy]

Castro's not gonna be the guy. The GOP rhetoric basically supercharged the Hispanic community for the DNC anyway and the dude is way too green.

 

[Valhelm]

Castro's not gonna be the guy. The GOP rhetoric basically supercharged the Hispanic community for the DNC anyway and the dude is way too green.

That's my thought.

She's probably going to pick a white male moderate comparable to Biden. Maaaybe Cory Booker.

 

[East Lake]

You're aware that the CEO's won't be hurt by any changes to banks, right? It'll be loan officers in Toldeo and tellers in Albany who will lose their jobs, not the asshole Ryan Gosling character from The Big Short.

On the contrary I think if you had an administration that even had a passing interest in bank regulation you'd definitely hurt some CEOs, and a bank teller might have a steady job when his seniors aren't pushing out record amounts of fraudulent loans.

 

[Macho Madness]

ɹǝllᴉʞ ɔɐᴉpoz ǝɥʇ sᴉ znɹɔ pǝʇ

 

[User 463088]

That's my thought.

She's probably going to pick a white male moderate comparable to Biden. Maaaybe Cory Booker.

I get the value of a boring pick but I still hope for someone exciting. Someone at can build the party around in 2024. I feel like an heir apparent world help us in the long run

 

[JesseEwiak]

On the contrary I think if you had an administration that even had a passing interest in bank regulation you'd definitely hurt some CEOs, and a bank teller might have a steady job when his seniors aren't pushing out record amounts of fraudulent loans.

Look, when the Goldman Sachs CEO shows Bernie Sanders the alternate camera view of the JFK assassination, he'll get in line too.

 

[Armaros]

On the contrary I think if you had an administration that even had a passing interest in bank regulation you'd definitely hurt some CEOs, and a bank teller might have a steady job when his seniors aren't pushing out record amounts of fraudulent loans.

Please explain this plan to break up the banks in such a way that you only hit the higher ups that make the big bucks but you don't force massive layoffs and restructures that would almost certainly put a huge chunk of the financial sector out of work.

 

[studyguy]

I get the value of a boring pick but I still hope for someone exciting. Someone at can build the party around in 2024. I feel like an heir apparent world help us in the long run

Doesn't help that the DNC's bench just doesn't seem to get all that deep in comparison to the republicans. Such a weird thing that I can always name more prominent republican candidates down the line who I expect to run vs democrats.

 

[User 463088]

I saw on CNN someone floated Brewer for Trump. Dear lord that's a terrifying ticket. Lawd.

 

[East Lake]

Please explain this plan to break up the banks in such a way that you only hit the higher ups that make the big bucks but you don't force massive layoffs and restructures that would almost certainly put a huge chunk of the financial sector out of work.

See S&L crisis.

Banks don't collapse because they are regulated.

Look, when the Goldman Sachs CEO shows Bernie Sanders the alternate camera view of the JFK assassination, he'll get in line too.

Throwing in the towel already? This is something Obama could easily do himself by appointing decent regulators and bumping up the FBI's white collar crime resources a bit. No revolution needed!

 

[damisa]

See S&L crisis.

Banks don't collapse because they are regulated.

As someone who actually works in Wall Street regulation, explain to me how banks are not regulated right now. What are they missing? Do you even know what regulation there is in place now? Have you ever heard of OATS or CATS?

 

[JesseEwiak]

Throwing in the towel already? This is something Obama could easily do himself by appointing decent regulators and bumping up the FBI's white collar crime resources a bit. No revolution needed!

Yes, no one who has ever worked on Wall Street should ever work as a regulator ever. Because they're tainted forever.

So you're going to charge people for things that were legal when they happened? Or use the FBI's scarce resources on 50/50 cases that might lead to millions being spent, only for no convictions because hey, Wall Street lawyers are pretty good.

 

[hawk2025]

See S&L crisis.

Banks don't collapse because they are regulated.

Throwing in the towel already? This is something Obama could easily do himself by appointing decent regulators and bumping up the FBI's white collar crime resources a bit. No revolution needed!

Banks can, by definition of regulation, collapse if they are regulated. Any market can.


Let's take one of Bernie's most ridiculous points, for example, rather than work with a more abstract example: Capping credit card interest rates at 15%.

What happens if an economic crisis pushes the break-even zero-profit interest rates of credit cards above 15%?

This is the fundamental problem with nearly all policies Bernie proposes: It's all thinking in one step. It doesn't consider any incentives. It doesn't consider that, if you cap credit rates at 15%, you won't get the ideal outcome where the exact same people that currently have credit cards at 17.5% APR will suddenly only be charged 15%: You will impact the market directly, you will restrict their credit, and you may be punishing the poorest of the poor.

Bernie never addresses incentives, never addresses causality. He sees a problem, and he tries to hit it with a hammer.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

We study a unique quasi-experiment in Austria, where compulsory voting laws are changed across Austria's nine states at different times. Analyzing state and national elections from 1949-2010, we show that compulsory voting laws with weakly enforced fines increase turnout by roughly 10 percentage points. However, we find no evidence that this change in turnout affected government spending patterns (in levels or composition) or electoral outcomes. Individual-level data on turnout and political preferences suggest these results occur because individuals swayed to vote due to compulsory voting are more likely to be non-partisan, have low interest in politics, and be uninformed.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22221

 

[shinra-bansho]

Is arbitrarily reducing the size (on what metric wasn't clear either but I guess assets is the goto) of banking financial institutions (while ignoring non bank institutions) considered "regulation".