Solid list at the end of the article on which of these beige, spineless dummies should be primaried. Including recently heroic Doug Jones and renowned man of the people, Tim Kaine.

https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-democrats-who-just-voted-to-sell-you-out-t-1823554660

Here Are the Democrats Who Just Voted to Sell You Out to Wall Street

Emma Roller
Tuesday 4:58pmFiled to: WALL STREET

It’s been 10 years since the financial crisis devastated pretty much everyone besides America’s biggest banks, which were mostly bailed out and left unpunished. Now, thanks to a crucial assist from some Democrats in the Senate, we may be due for a repeat.

On Tuesday, 16 Democratic senators and one independent voted with Republicans to move forward on a bill which will roll back parts of the Dodd-Frank regulations put in place after the financial crisis. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the probability of “systematically important” banks failing “is small under current law and would be slightly greater under the legislation.”

Chad Bolt
@chadderr
Attention Dems supporting S. 2155 and looking for an off ramp to change your mind: THE CBO SCORE IS IT. CBO says it:

- increases likelihood of bank failure + taxpayer bailouts
- helps biggest banks, including $250B+, maybe Citi and JPMorgan
- adds $670 million to deficit

10:12 PM - Mar 5, 2018

Aside from loosening Wall Street regulations, the bill—which is titled the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act—will also defang current rules that require lenders to report who they are (and aren’t) lending to.

In February, a report from the Center for Investigative Reporting found that, in 2015 and 2016, banks in 61 metropolitan areas systematically denied mortgages to people of color. The report’s authors found that in Philadelphia, black applicants “were almost three times as likely to be denied a conventional home purchase loan as white applicants.”

By weakening the government’s ability to collect data on lending practices, the bill essentially gives banks a pass to pursue discriminatory practices with little oversight.

Supporters of the bill have been adamant that the legislation is meant to provide relief to mom-and-pop community banks. But as The Intercept’s David Dayen has reported, members of Congress and bankers alike are using the “community banks” line as a a fig leaf for the actual purpose of the bill: giving yet another handout to Wall Street behemoths like Citigroup.

As Indivisible’s Angel Padilla noted on Twitter, Republicans needed Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to take the bill forward. And though Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer technically voted against the bill, he also did nothing to stop its progress:

Angel Padilla
✔
@AngelRafPadilla
Replying to @AngelRafPadilla
Dems are in the minority, but they have tools that they can use to stop or at least slow down this bill. The first is the vote on the Motion to Proceed, which has a 60 vote threshold. That means that McConnell needs at least 10 Democrats to move onto the bill.


Angel Padilla
✔
@AngelRafPadilla
The MTP is where a powerful Minority Leader could stop a bill they didn’t like, if they wanted to. In this case, @SenSchumer could ask his caucus to vote against the MTP and this would all be over. But he’s not asking Dems to vote against the MTP; the question is, why not?

11:18 AM - Mar 6, 2018
108
51 people are talking about this


Angel Padilla
✔
@AngelRafPadilla
Replying to @AngelRafPadilla
There are only two explanations, each equally damning. The first is that Schumer doesn’t have control over his caucus, which is a bad place to be if you really want to be Majority Leader. It means that he can’t ask for Ds to vote against it because he knows they’ll ignore him.


Angel Padilla
✔
@AngelRafPadilla
The second is that @SenSchumer not-so-secretly wants this bill to pass. He’ll vote against it, to provide cover for himself, but he’ll do nothing to stop it from moving forward. This is the most likely explanation.

11:18 AM - Mar 6, 2018
151
71 people are talking about this

Listed below are all the Democratic senators (including independent Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats) who supported the bill, along with how much money the financial sector has donated to each of their campaigns in the past five years. (These numbers don’t include donations to so-called “independent expenditure” organizations like super PACs.)

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO): $1,909,757
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE): $170,810
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE): $373,599
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN): $448,997
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH): $421,263
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND): $511,039
Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL): $417,406
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): $921,903
Sen. Angus King (I-ME): $115,563
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): $289,314
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): $809,727
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL): $281,327
Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI): $648,379
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): $319,249
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): $484,939
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): $782,122
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): $1,377,713

These senators just voted to allow bankers to return to the same dangerous practices that gave us the economic recession in the first place. They are giving Wall Street the go-ahead to gamble with money that isn’t theirs. They are giving lenders more leeway to discriminate against black homeowners and other people of color. I’m sure they’ll be richly rewarded for it.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

funny how he has the most donations

and he is hiding behind the excuse that the current laws hurt small banks.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I think Mark Warner had more donations, though that whole pack of folks circling up and over a million dollars was pretty eye-opening.

>and he is hiding behind the excuse that the current laws hurt
>small banks.

I'm pretty comfortable being lied to by politicians. Eating shit sandwiches from these dorks who can't even be corrupt in an interesting way is part of being an American. But "we're looking out for mom and pop banks" almost seems deliberately insulting. Like "let's see how much these dummies will swallow" level bullshit.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

But maybe a Virginian can explain why Warner and Kaine are worth so much to donors from the financial sector because I don't get it.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

In that state, you have to be able to speak to blue dog white working class in the southwest part of the state, black folks in Tidewater and Richmond, and upper middle class suburbanites in the Fairfax/Arlington. For the DCCC/Centrist/neoliberal wing of the party, Warner and Kaine bring back fantasies of Clintonism.

The Wall Street calculus is probably invest the money in now, have a sympathetic ear later when one of them is VP.

They didn't even try to put up a fight.

---------------------------
Signature

Could be worse if that's the case

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

Dems could have blocked it.

---------------------------
Signature

Well 1 Republican didn't vote because he was OOO.

So Republicans are 100% for fucking you, about 1/3 of Dems are, and Independents are at 50%.

The lesson: VOTE DEM.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2018/s48?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

Can we fit "there's only a 34% chance your elected representative will screw you" on a yard poster? Because if so, we need to start printing those up as soon as possible.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>Can we fit "there's only a 34% chance your elected
>representative will screw you" on a yard poster? Because if
>so, we need to start printing those up as soon as possible.

No, focus on electing dems AND making them BETTER.

But face it - that's where we are at TODAY. TODAY the best option is to vote for the people who fuck you LESS.

Disagree? Then you are a child. (Hey, Jesus was a chuild too, right??)

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/republican-jewish-coalition-calls-resignation-7-democrats-over-075003263--abc-news-topstories.html

epublican Jewish Coalition calls for resignation of 7 Democrats over ties; to Farrakhan (ABC News)
The Republican Jewish Coalition is calling for the resignation of seven Democratic members of Congress whom it claims are "connected" to controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The group describes him as a "known anti-Semite."

Farrakhan has routinely spoke disparagingly about Jews over the years, as well as white people, in general. He was thrust into the mainstream spotlight again this week after excerpts from a speech he gave last week on the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day surfaced online. During the speech, he once again described Jewish people -- who he says "are my enemy" -- in a pejorative manner.

The lobbying group on Tuesday called for the following lawmakers to step down: Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Barbara Lee, D-Calif.; Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; Danny Davis, D-Ill.; Andre Carson, D-Ind.; Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.; and Al Green, D-Texas.
The aforementioned lawmakers have at one point in their careers while in the House -- but not necessarily anytime recently nor with any frequency -- met Farrakhan. In a report it published Tuesday, The Daily Caller outlined the various previous interactions, based on videos and photos.

ABC News has reached out to each of the seven lawmakers for comment on the Republican Jewish Coalition's call for their resignations.


Davis told The Daily Caller in a statement Monday, without specifically addressing Farrakhan, anti-Semitism is "antithetical to everything I believe and everything that I work for on a daily basis."

Davis also described Farrakhan as an "outstanding human being."

A spokesman for Ellison, the deputy director of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News on Tuesday that Ellison "has repeatedly disavowed anti-Semitism and bigotry, since his first campaign for Congress in 2006." Ellison in 2007 became the first Muslim member of Congress, has been a vocal opponent of prejudice.


Good Morning America
Republican Jewish Coalition calls for resignation of 7 Democrats over 'ties' to Farrakhan
Good Morning America Good Morning America 3 hours ago
Reactions Like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Republican Jewish Coalition calls for resignation of 7 Democrats over 'ties' to Farrakhan (ABC News)
The Republican Jewish Coalition is calling for the resignation of seven Democratic members of Congress whom it claims are "connected" to controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The group describes him as a "known anti-Semite."

Farrakhan has routinely spoke disparagingly about Jews over the years, as well as white people, in general. He was thrust into the mainstream spotlight again this week after excerpts from a speech he gave last week on the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day surfaced online. During the speech, he once again described Jewish people -- who he says "are my enemy" -- in a pejorative manner.

The lobbying group on Tuesday called for the following lawmakers to step down: Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Barbara Lee, D-Calif.; Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; Danny Davis, D-Ill.; Andre Carson, D-Ind.; Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y.; and Al Green, D-Texas.

PHOTO: Rep. Maxine Waters on Capitol Hill, Jan. 31, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images, FILE)
The aforementioned lawmakers have at one point in their careers while in the House -- but not necessarily anytime recently nor with any frequency -- met Farrakhan. In a report it published Tuesday, The Daily Caller outlined the various previous interactions, based on videos and photos.

ABC News has reached out to each of the seven lawmakers for comment on the Republican Jewish Coalition's call for their resignations.


Davis told The Daily Caller in a statement Monday, without specifically addressing Farrakhan, anti-Semitism is "antithetical to everything I believe and everything that I work for on a daily basis."

Davis also described Farrakhan as an "outstanding human being."

In this Dec. 12, 2016 file photo, Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill. poses for a portrait at his congressional office in Chicago. (The Associated Press)
A spokesman for Ellison, the deputy director of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News on Tuesday that Ellison "has repeatedly disavowed anti-Semitism and bigotry, since his first campaign for Congress in 2006." Ellison in 2007 became the first Muslim member of Congress, has been a vocal opponent of prejudice.

In this Dec. 2, 2016, file photo, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison listens during a forum on the future of the Democratic Party in Denver. (The Associated Press)
Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest child, entered the fray late Wednesday night, retweeting a post by Farrakhan and sarcastically adding, "I guess all the denouncing from the Dems who have met with him must be lost in the mail??? I’m sure they’ll be all over it someday."

Below, the statement issued by Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks:

Seven long-serving Democrats have close ties with Louis Farrakhan. Each of them should resign.

They include former Nation of Islam employee, Congressman Keith Ellison, who is Deputy Chair of the DNC. Ellison has tried to excuse his 2013 meeting with Farrakhan, while ignoring his more recent meeting with the NOI leader in Farrakhan’s hotel room, in 2015. At least six other Democrats are known to have embraced Farrakhan. These members of Congress - Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Danny Davis, Andre Carson, Gregory Meeks, and Al Green - have all, while in office, sat down with Farrakhan for personal meetings.

There can be no question about how abhorrent it is for these Democrats to be connected to Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is first and foremost a preacher of hate. He preaches about Jewish “control” over the government and media and has claimed to have “pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew,” saying “your time is up, your world is through.” And those were just the comments from last week.

Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Farrakhan is the moral equivalent of a leader of the KKK. If it was discovered that members of Congress had met with the leader of the KKK, they would need to resign. In this case, for meeting with, and embracing, Louis Farrakhan, nothing short of resignation is acceptable from these seven Democrats.

______________________________________

Everything looks like Oprah kissing Harvey Weinstein these days

<--- Big Baller World Order

This is a bad bill. And a bunch of Democrats in good standing voted for it. I can't believe you think the answer to that is to do nothing.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

I seriously don’t give a damn about politics anymore

Shit is like wrestling

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

<--- Big Baller World Order

between the parties

they'll get enough Dem support to pass their agenda

some of the holdouts; Bern, Warren, etc...

will get on their soapbox and look like champions of the people

people who want to believe that, will

and the machine will keep turning.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

vote for this? It's not that red of a state and this isn't going to help anyone in Michigan.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

That's my first thought.

I feel like he makes a pretty good faith effort to engage with
the substance of the bill. And I appreciated his additional
note that, even if this does chip away at a really important
bit of Democratic legislation - noting that was maybe
inevitable with the present Republican power should at least
have these supporting Democrats asking for something in
return.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/opinion/democrats-trump-dodd-frank.html

Why Are Democrats Helping Trump Dismantle Dodd-Frank?
By MIKE KONCZAL
MARCH 6, 2018

This week, the Senate begins debate on the Economic Growth,
Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, known as the
Crapo bill for its primary sponsor, Mike Crapo, a Republican
senator from Idaho. The bill would roll back or eliminate
parts of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Crapo bill is unusual in today’s hyperpartisan
environment: It has over 10 Democratic co-sponsors, many from
swing or red states and up for re-election this year — like
Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon
Tester of Montana and Claire McCaskill of Missouri — making
its passage possible.

Why would some Democrats provide support for a rollback of
Dodd-Frank? Proponents argue that this bill provides much
needed relief for community banks and credit unions, which,
these proponents claim, face enormous difficulties. They also
say that it doesn’t endanger financial reforms aimed against
the largest and most dangerous players.

But that view is mistaken: This bill goes far beyond the
health of community banks and credit unions. It removes
protections for 25 of the top 38 banks; weakens regulations on
the biggest players and encourages them to manipulate
regulations for their benefit; and saps consumer protections.

What do Democrats get in return? Nothing substantive that they
should want. They could demand better funding for regulators
or an appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
— or a vote on gun control.

The Crapo proposal would relax important regulations for major
banks. Though often described as medium in size, these banks
are still very large. Dodd-Frank introduces regulations for
banks with assets of more than $50 billion, regulations that
increase in strictness as the banks get larger and riskier.
This ensures that they have enough cash to survive a crisis,
quality equity to manage problems and a living-will plan for
how they can fail without bringing down the economy.

This regulation affects the 38 largest banks. By comparison,
the more than 5,000 community banks in our country generally
have $1 billion dollars in assets or less.

The bill would move that line up to $250 billion. This would
exempt 25 of the largest banks, which in total account for
$3.5 trillion, or 16 percent of total banking assets. Authors
of the bill argue that the regulators could still enforce
tighter rules on some of these banks. But history tells us
they won’t until it is too late.

The costs could be severe, with regulators less prepared to
deal with the next financial crisis. The failure of
Countrywide (around $200 billion in size) in 2008 caused panic
and problems in the mortgage market. The Trump administration
recently admitted that it needed the regulations in Dodd-Frank
to handle the failure of financial firms and that its
alternative of a new bankruptcy chapter works only with these
heightened rules that will be rolled back for these 25 banks.

Other changes make life much easier for the largest players
and encourage regulatory shenanigans. Dodd-Frank introduced
more “stress tests” — fire-drill-like exercises that
ensure the banks can handle a major downturn. The Crapo bill
reduces their frequency for all the major players’ internal
tests, from Citigroup to JPMorgan Chase on down.

The Crapo bill will introduce a one-word change from “may”
to “shall” that will pave the way for the biggest, most
politically connected financial firms to argue that
regulations should be tailored to be weaker for themselves,
creating a race-to-the-bottom dynamic in what has been, so
far, fair rules written for all banks to follow together. It
allows community banks to violate the Volcker Rule, introduced
in Dodd-Frank to prevent banks from engaging in
hedge-fund-like gambling with their own funds.

Foreign banks that pose major risks, such as the
Trump-friendly Deutsche Bank, will see their United States
subsidiaries deregulated with the bill. It attacks the
supplemental leverage ratio — an essential reform that
provides a clear, straightforward funding rule to ensure banks
are stable — by watering it down for two of the largest
eight banks. Reporting shows other large banks like Citigroup
and JPMorgan Chase are fighting to expand this further. This
starts the rule down a path of not being informative or useful
for regulators and capital markets. This is why the
Congressional Budget Office not only assumes that it is 50
percent likely these megabanks will abuse this loophole, but
also that this bill increases the chance and cost of a
financial crisis overall. Given the sheer opportunity to abuse
porous rules introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is
overkill to give finance even more rules to abuse for its own
profit.

Moderate Democrats could fight for a narrower bill that would
benefit small banks — with the understanding that community
banks aren’t actually suffering. According to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, community banks had $6 billion
in profits in the fall of 2017, a rise of 9.4 percent over the
previous year. Furthermore, since Dodd-Frank, several waves of
deregulation bills for small banks have already passed.

Communities must have banks that can meet their needs. By
rolling back requirements for medium-size banks, the Crapo
proposal will accelerate mergers and consolidations rather
than postpone them. This could cause even fewer community
banks and more concentration in the long run. If we are
concerned about a top-heavy financial sector, the way to
handle that is with breaking up the banks and structural
reforms for the biggest players, not by removing basic rules
at the bottom.

This bill also hurts consumers. It removes protections on
mobile homes and appraisal requirements in rural areas, while
getting rid of the requirement that smaller banks prove that
borrowers can repay subprime loans they make and keep on their
own books. All of these read as if they were written to
appease a specific lobbying group, rather than out of a
concern for consumer security.

The most serious consumer protection rollback involves banks
reporting on the mortgages they offer. The Crapo bill will
exempt banks that make fewer than 500 mortgages — which
includes nearly 85 percent of banks — from reporting
important mortgage data. This data is used to ensure that
discriminatory or other abusive practices aren’t happening.
This exposes minority communities and rural areas, voters
Democrats need to win over to gain viability, to increased
predation.

This exemption also prevents the government from being able to
analyze and counter discrimination where it happens. Given the
real threat that the Trump administration has been to the
collection of reliable data needed to carry out government
functions, it is absurd for Democrats to willingly help Mr.
Trump and his Republican allies here.

Instead of signing a bill that is well targeted to community
banks or strengthens other parts of Dodd-Frank, Democrats got
an agreement that consumers can freeze their credit scores
once a year. Consumers are going to need that with the abuses
President Trump is allowing to happen, now with moderate
Democratic support. The Democrats promised a better economic
“deal” than Mr. Trump. Those supporting this bill instead
show that they can’t make any deal at all.

Mike Konczal is a fellow with the Roosevelt Institute.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

That's weird. Did I ... post wrong?

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad