General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy 17 Democrats voted with Republicans to ease bank rules/I am sick of Democratic bashing.
Seventeen Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to ease regulations on some banks.
Most of those Democrats face re-election this year, and seven are running in states Trump won.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/15/why-senate-democrats-voted-for-bank-bill-to-ease-dodd-frank-rules.html
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Because of math.
I never joke about the math, it is serious and real. Anybody with a D after their name is better than ANYBODY with an R for MATH reasons
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)than perfect Dem is better than a shitty Republican.
atreides1
(16,047 posts)Then can we at least admit that in order to fill the seats in Congress with Democrats, we too are willing to throw out principles and integrity...as long as we have the numbers???
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)since Roosevelt represents integrity? What principle is found in a loss? Moderate Democrats may not agree with you or me...but it is wrong to say they are without integrity...and we can't have majority any other way.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)and run with a D after their name?
then what?
I mean, I get 100% what you and other are saying and can certainly not say I disagree.
So my question is not a black and white one....
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Do they prevent us from getting everything we want...sure. Single payer for example, but we got the ACA. And we will get nothing without them.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)Can't we stop attacking each other for the next 7 months
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)this year. The GOP could end up with a veto proof majority...it is scary as hell.
bdamomma
(63,658 posts)this was one of things Malcolm Nance mentioned about the splitting of the Democratic party and how Russia saw the divide and decided to divide people between the two democratic challenges in the 2016 election. Just saying.
We need to unite at this most serious time in our history our lives depend on it.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,283 posts)... we can start nitpicking DINOs and Blue Dogs. And we will.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)We have a tough fight ahead in the Senate. The bill can be altered/improved after we regain power.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Math matters...50 Republicans voted for it and it would not have made it to the floor had we won in 16...we dance to the GOP tune...and winning is the only thing that matters at the moment.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)UNLESS that someone cant win due to demographics.
Again, this is simple, MATH
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)blue states only. It would be madness to primary red state Senators for this vote.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)in 2016, how do we explain to them that they need to support the Democrats they DISAGREE with the MOST?
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)was that bad either...I am glad they raised the amount needed for two big to fail status.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)them, their politics, their needs as on an individual basis, etc.
I wish it was, but it has never been. It is about the bigger picture and on one side you can count on them NOT attacking you mentally, financially and spiritually on a daily basis and on the other side you can count on them doing that.
I wont find a government that provides a guaranteed income or universal healthcare no matter who I vote for in the next few years UNLESS I first give all power over to the party most likely wiling to do that in the first place.
Most people here would NOT like my politics because I am so far left it is ridiculous, BUT, my politics are meaningless without power.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)a fact that got lost in the disaster of the presidential election. Plus two seats in the Senate, I believe.
But I agree with your general premise. We need the numbers desperately.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,256 posts)I'd rather have Dems in DC than the current rep comrades. I understand the vote, and I understand your point.
So for me for now, we need to get every Dem re-elected and get a majority in the House.
I'll take a crappy Dem over almost any gop comrade right now because we need to take back the country and get rid of the trump disease ASAP.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)MyOwnPeace
(16,888 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,256 posts)I'm not a fan of Dem bashing BUT
I'm also not a fan of working hard to help get them elected and donating tons of money (for me) to have some of them turn into "invertebrates" as soon as they get to DC.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)a big loss in the Senate and failed to get the house which is still gerrymandered, it would be an unimaginal disaster for progressive and for policy. Remember 7 of them are in areas where Trump still polls wells. The others are at risk as they are in states with large banking interests and moderates too.
awesomerwb1
(4,256 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,256 posts)hueymahl
(2,418 posts)Decreasing regulations on the largest banks that brought us the great recession is hardly a "hot button" issue in their districts, no matter how red they may be. Their inability to spin this as a positive to their constituents is hard for me to believe (with the slight possible exception of Delaware, which is highly dependent on banks and corporations).
I think what is really going on is they are being paid off by the banking interests in their states and voted they way their owners told them to.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Senators are at serious risk...and those in banking states too...this did help smaller banks so it was not completely horrible...and it raised the amount of money needed for a bank to be deemed to big to fail. We can fix this bill when we regain power.
hueymahl
(2,418 posts)I'm all for doing what is necessary to win, even if it means compromising democratic principles. I just don't think they needed to here. I think the true motivation was money. They were scared to lose the money they get paid from the banking industry.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)hueymahl
(2,418 posts)This is not an issue they would lose on with their constituency. This is an issue of sucking on the money teat of the banking industry.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)obstructionists in the campaigns. They need to vote for something...and in my opinion this is better than any other bill. Barney Frank says 95% is still intact...and there is an easing on truly small banks...and the amount needed to be considered to big to fail has been raised...that is not a bad thing.
hueymahl
(2,418 posts)Especially about the part of raising the "too big to fail" threshold. THAT is a very bad thing. We need more regulation of banks of all sizes, not less. More regulation of financial institutions of all kinds, not less. If I was a bank president, I would be very happy with this result and believe that I invested my political contributions wisely.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)regulation too...but you won't get it without a Democratic majority.
hueymahl
(2,418 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)I believe Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidates in the general in 18 and 20. I think we have a good shot.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)And even if I am wrong...and they did it for whatever reason...it doesn't matter. We need all of them to win in 18...and if we take a couple more we can shut down Trump's judicial picks.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Republican voters aren't going to be impressed by a vote on a bill they don't care about.
These are corrupted Democrats, not desperate ones.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's really just a Wall Street giveaway. Do ordinary people care about banks? Does it create any jobs? I don't think so.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)hueymahl
(2,418 posts)Even if it was Jesus himself running.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)for this bill, visit a couple.
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Yeah, I can see how that would work
I thought the 'blue wave' was about NOT being like Trump
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)leftstreet
(36,081 posts)That's the first I'd heard that
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Democrats and screwing Trump-this puts their re-election at risk...vote for the GOP send Trump some help blah blah. They needed to vote for something.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Democratic bashing is different then being highly critical of a vote against issue which was previously an important Democratic position.
And so many on here wonder how anyone could be an independent??
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)get back in power...and the worst Democrat is better than the 'best' Republican...the Democrats have held off voting for GOP bills for over a year...the 17 all had reasons for their votes...most I understand...and losing 7 Senatorial seats would be way more disastrous than a bill that can be improved when we gain power. If the Democratic Senator's explanations don't satisfy you primary them after we have power of course...not now. Also, don't primary red state Democratic Senators for any reason...it is madness to do so. We need them for a majority. I would add you should get involved in primarying sitting Democrats only if you are from their state.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Before condemning these senators, take a look at this video from Vice on HBO. In it, Frank says don't condemn these senators, 95% of Dodd-Frank is not changed, and more.
What Barney Frank Really Thinks About Roll-Back of Dodd-Frank.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)We need all our Senators to win re-election.
davsand
(13,420 posts)Calling yourself a Dem then voting regularly like a Republican has another name (well, several, actually. Some would probably get me deleted.) We'll stick to "Democrat In Name Only" for the purposes of this discussion. Primaries are vital in those cases. Sure, there's always gonna be a vote that you may not agree with, but being wrong on EVERY freaking issue should be a big red flag.
YMMV, but a primary for those guys should always be on the table.
Laura
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)have a majority and accomplish exactly nothing ever. I consider Joe Manchin and Claire McCAskill moderate Democrats.
davsand
(13,420 posts)Just can't do it. I could never vote the way they do. Electing me as a Republican would elect a RINO, and it would do everything to undermine their values when it came time to vote on critical issues like the ACA repeal, the wall, DACA, , abortion, LGBT rights, etc... Pretty sure Republican voters would come after me in a primary.
I currently live in a congressional district with a multi term fundy holding the office. Nobody is willing to run against him, and as a result he sails through every election. The ONLY way he's ever gonna be gone is he either dies in office or another Republican takes him out in a primary. A RINO might be the solution to the problem.
Is it easier to see my point when I reverse the viewpoint? My opinion is that these 'Dems" we are discussing need to be primaried every time. MCaskill does vote with Dems, sometimes, BTW. Manchin, however is somebody that needs to be challenged every time.
Laura
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)strategy and the big tent strategy...it is the only way we ever get a majority. And without a majority, we get nothing.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)they would have to bring back the draft.
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)They sold out the working class so fuck'em. I have voted Democratic for over 50 years so I can only abstain rather than support Kaine.
I will vote against him in the primary, I'm sick of these assholes thinking it's is all about more money for themselves. When did it happen, that by becoming a US Senator you were assure of being a multi-millionaire?
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)Warner on why some blue state Senators supported the bill.
What moved this bill was the longtime belief that there had been reduced access to capital, particularly in rural communities, and every states got some of that, Warner said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/19/why-democrats-voted-to-roll-back-obama-era-banking-rules/?utm_term=.a104bc42633d
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)I'm not sure the end result proved anything and fixed anything pro-Dem policy-wise.....what it did do was aid Republicans.
I'm completely sold on the fact that if Dems can get a majority in both houses and then in 2020 WH....we can have the same type of power the Reps currently wield and the course of several projects can be reversed. BUT, first things first, getting the majority. apparently that will have to happen without your vote.
davsand
(13,420 posts)If they can't ever vote with the party they are a "placeholder" and nothing more. I would argue they hurt our party a lot more than they help it. I totally get that you have to represent your district, but when every vote contradicts the party platform, you are nothing more than a DINO using the party association to get elected.
Laura
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)of the time...so how often would a GOP replacement do that?...How about never. And without DINO's as you call them, are needed for us to have a majority in the Senate. That is the reality of situation.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)backing a far left progressive that has no chance of winning this type of district? That's not a great strategy.
if there is such a thing as a "place holder" it would be the Dem that was elected until the district can turn blue enough and liberal enough to suit your special needs.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)minds.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)we need red state Senators to hold a majority. This does mean we won't get every progressive policy...but we will get some good stuff...100% of nothing =nothing.