Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 29, 2017

The changes are the result of a combination of forces: business-friendly appointments by the president, a lack of financial and personnel resources at many federal agencies, minute changes in rules imposed by regulators and a relaxation in how bank examiners supervise large institutions. Most noticeably, there's been a dramatic change in tone from the White House. This weekend, [Donald] Trump wrote in a Twitter post that regulators, in particular the consumer bureau, have left the financial industry "devastated and unable to properly serve the public." It was a rare instance of a politician casting Wall Street as a victim -- especially since the banking industry is on a roll.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Commercial banks last year generated $157 billion in profits, the highest level ever, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Banks are making lots of loans. Their stock prices have been marching ever higher.

Critics of the Trump administration's approach argue that the regulatory pendulum is swinging too far and too fast in favor of the banking industry, risking a repeat of the problems that led up to the financial crisis.

"The fear is that this administration will go back on all of the promises that it made on the campaign trail to look out for the little guy and will roll back all of the protections that were put in place after the 2008 economic collapse," said Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress, a consumer group. "What's happening at the consumer bureau is a perfect example of that. They're trying to put in charge a guy who doesn't even believe that the C.F.P.B. should exist."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Everybody who crowed about Crooked Hillary being in bed with Wall Street, please leave your name on this thread.

We would like to point and laugh at you.

#1 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2017-11-28 01:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 7

You can fool some of the people all of the time. They are called Republicans.

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-28 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Restoring power to the people.













The people that matter, ie, not you Trump voters.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2017-11-29 09:31 AM | Reply

-to point and laugh at you.

Some people wonder why others are hard on those people around her. Because they deserve it, that's why.

.
"They're trying to put in charge a guy who doesn't even believe that the C.F.P.B. should exist."

The strategery has been the same since the Reagan Era's Irving Krystol came up with, "Starve the Beast".

"It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" – a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country.

As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes – and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

from How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
www.rollingstone.com

Obama cleaned up after GW, getting the economy back in gear while alienating poor, under-educated white men; Trump's voting base that serves the GOP's donor base as proxies... and now it's time to create another recession, with accompanying war if possible, so the cycle of profit-taking; of feast and famine, can continue.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 08:51 PM | Reply

around here, lol

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-29 08:51 PM | Reply


KBW Bank Index
www.investopedia.com

...An economic index consisting of the stocks of 24 banking companies. This index serves as a benchmark of the banking sector. This index trades on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, where it was created....

Looks like the bank index is doing fairly well. Hardly a victim.

finance.yahoo.com^BKX#eyJTWSI6W1siXkJLWCIsbnVsbCwwLDBdXSwiVFMiOlsxLCJ3ZWVrIixudWxsLFsieWVhciIsNSwiNV9ZIl1dLCJVUyI6WzA
sMSwxXSwiQ1MiOlsibGluZSIsImxpbmVhciIsMy40OTYxODMyMDYxMDY4NyxudWxsLG51bGwsIiMwMDgxZjIiXSwiU1QiOnsidm9
sIHVuZHIiOnsidHlwZSI6InZvbCB1bmRyIiwiaW5wdXRzIjp7ImlkIjoidm9sIHVuZHIiLCJkaXNwbGF5Ijoidm9sIHVuZHIifSw
ib3V0cHV0cyI6eyJVcCBWb2x1bWUiOiIjMDBiMDYxIiwiRG93biBWb2x1bWUiOiIjRkYzMzNBIn0sInBhbmVsIjoiY2hhcnQiLCJ
wYXJhbWV0ZXJzIjp7ImhlaWdodFBlcmNlbnRhZ2UiOjAuMjUsIndpZHRoRmFjdG9yIjowLjQ1LCJjaGFydE5hbWUiOiJjaGFydCJ
9fX0sInYiOiIwLjEuMCIsIm1pbiI6MX0=

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-29 09:55 PM | Reply


Wow, that link didn't work at all. I was trying to post a Yahoo! index pricing chart that showed a 100% price increase for the bank index over 5 years.

Let me try again with me explicitly specifying the http syntax......

That didn't work either.

Oh well....

It seems this site has issues with long URLs. :(

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-11-29 10:00 PM | Reply

A position he never refuted during the campaign, while blaming Hillary for being too close to Wall Street. Trump is a con artist. In fact every financial crisis on the planet earth has been triggered by Banks and super-rich bond holders seeking short term gains. But trump's renewed war on the working class is not really new, since Reagan, every President has made life more difficult for working Americans in some way.

#8 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-30 06:14 AM | Reply

"But trump's renewed war on the working class is not really new, since Reagan, every President has made life more difficult for working Americans in some way."

Time to play "Both sides are the same!" What a crock.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-30 07:06 AM | Reply

But trump's renewed war on the working class is not really new, since Reagan, every President has made life more difficult for working Americans in some way.

#8 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

Really? Because Clinton and Obama were pretty good at making life better for working Americans.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 10:27 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Hillary being in bed with Wall Street"

Can they both be in bed with Wall Street? You are couching this in Manichean terms. Obviously Trump is far worse.

#11 | Posted by dibblda at 2017-11-30 12:28 PM | Reply

"Hillary being in bed with Wall Street"
Can they both be in bed with Wall Street? You are couching this in Manichean terms. Obviously Trump is far worse.

#11 | POSTED BY DIBBLDA

It's that last part which matters.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 01:02 PM | Reply

"Can they both be in bed with Wall Street?"

I guaranGodDamntee you Hillary would never sign on to the tax scam Congress is about to cram up our rears.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-30 01:49 PM | Reply

#1 is the dumbest comment I've read in a while.

In what ------- fantasy does Trump being a shill for the banks preclude Hillary being a shill for the banks?

Newsflash: the oligarchs buy influence from anyone who has some to sell. Unlike you dopes, the don't care all that much about the letter after the pol's name.

Hillary was still an influence peddler. Nothing anyone else does changes that.

Trump really owes everything to bankers. He could have been done after his 1st bankruptcy but they bailed him out when they didn't have to. Just another reason why bankers suck.

#14 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 02:13 PM | Reply

#1 is the dumbest comment I've read in a while.
In what ------- fantasy does Trump being a shill for the banks preclude Hillary being a shill for the banks?
Newsflash: the oligarchs buy influence from anyone who has some to sell. Unlike you dopes, the don't care all that much about the letter after the pol's name.
Hillary was still an influence peddler. Nothing anyone else does changes that.
Trump really owes everything to bankers. He could have been done after his 1st bankruptcy but they bailed him out when they didn't have to. Just another reason why bankers suck.

#14 | POSTED BY SULLY

In the real world actually.

It's about who is worse. Hillary wouldn't be giving them such a tax break, gutting the Consumer Protection Bureau or heavily deregulating Wall Street...

Welcome to reality.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Trump really owes everything to bankers."

Good point Sully.
So, Trump and Clinton are equally beholden to bankers, then?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-30 02:41 PM | Reply

Neither is acceptable. I will concede that Hillary would at least try to be subtle.

#17 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 02:52 PM | Reply

Sen Dianne Feinstein‏ @SenFeinstein

UPDATE: We may vote on the Republican tax bill TONIGHT. We don't have the final bill. We don't have analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation as to whether or not the bill would boost the economy. We don't have a Treasury Department analysis. This is OUTRAGEOUS!
10:01 AM - 30 Nov 2017

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-11-30 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Neither is acceptable."

I asked if they're equally beholden.
I'll pencil you in as a "no, Trump is more beholden" until I hear otherwise.
Have a nice day.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-30 03:11 PM | Reply

Neither is acceptable. I will concede that Hillary would at least try to be subtle.

#17 | POSTED BY SULLY

No no, you are dodging.

Would Clinton give a huge tax break to Wall Street while screwing the rest of us?
Would Clinton destroy the CFPB like Mulvaney?
Would Clinton deregulate Wall Street?

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- you are dodging.

A symptom of Chronic HDS is being unable to admit that Trump is definitely much worse in nearly if not every respect... and that there was not another real world choice except for one of those two in the general election.

I mean, I would have rather seen Sophia Vergara elected than either of them, but you don't see me in denial, right?

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-30 03:33 PM | Reply

Hey, do you remember when Trump said he gave a crap about factory workers? ha ha ha. Me too.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 04:01 PM | Reply

#20 - it is absurd for you to claim to know she would not. She has taken millions from them not only for campaigns but personally. And she admits to having a public and private position which means you have no idea what she would do.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 04:04 PM | Reply

#21 - trump is a dumpster fire and still had less blood on his hands than Hillary.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 04:06 PM | Reply

-- still had less blood on his hands than Hillary.

Give him a chance... he's just getting started. "War President" for the re-election is on the schedule, -----.

-- it is absurd for you to claim to know she would not

Dem policy and her voting record say she would not. Your equivalencies between her and Trump on these issues is laughably false.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-30 04:12 PM | Reply

#25 Corky is the one fool on the planet who doesn't know that to determine a pol's allegiance you follow the money.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 04:25 PM | Reply

#25 Corky is the one fool on the planet who doesn't know that to determine a pol's allegiance you follow the money.
#26 | POSTED BY SULLY

Would Clinton give a huge tax break to Wall Street while screwing the rest of us?
Would Clinton destroy the CFPB like Mulvaney?
Would Clinton deregulate Wall Street?
#20 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Why do you keep pretending Clinton and Trump are both equally in bed with Wall Street?
Why do you keep dodging the questions?

#27 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- follow the money.

Follow the money all you want and you won't find the votes in the Senate that support that thesis. Many have tried, all have failed. She voted for the Dodd-Frank and Warren's Consumer Protections and her policy plans were just the opposite of the current GOP tax bill.

www.vox.com

Not to mention that Dem policy and and Dem leaders wouldn't allow her to do what Trump and the GOP are doing in this tax bill as you laughably claim she would.

Of course, general assumptions like that are the playground of shallow thinkers and, as we all know, your Chronic HDS is well-documented... and funny as ----.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-30 04:37 PM | Reply

Clinton released a tax plan during the campaign that was far worse for Wall Street than the current Republican bill. And while she has a history of being full of it, we know for certain what Trump is trying to do, so i'm not sure why anyone would even talk about what they think she might do.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-30 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#29

NW

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-30 04:45 PM | Reply

Clinton released a tax plan during the campaign that was far worse for Wall Street than the current Republican bill. And while she has a history of being full of it, we know for certain what Trump is trying to do, so i'm not sure why anyone would even talk about what they think she might do.

#29 | POSTED BY JOE

Because that's all they have to defend him with.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-30 04:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

still had less blood on his hands than Hillary.

#24 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-30 04:06 PM | Reply

Give him a chance, he is trying his best to kill ACA. It's just a matter of time till his body count takes off.

#32 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-01 09:54 AM | Reply

#29 - the mystery of why we are talking about Hillary would be solved by reading the thread. Hillary shills bring up how great things would be if their objectively horrible candidate had won and then they have to be reminded of who and what they are actually shilling for.

Hillary's campaign tax plan is meaningless, FYI. You don't know what her private position is when she's dealing with oligarchs who give her millions.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hillary's campaign tax plan is meaningless"

You've drunk the kool-aid. Just because Trump is a pathological liar, doesn't mean all politicians are.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#34 Hillary is the one who said she had a public and private position. And that fits in with her refusal to tell us what she says when bankers pay her a few hundred thousand for an appearance.

You want to pretend that FOX made this up but the truth is common knowledge. You are demonstrably wrong on this.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 10:44 AM | Reply

"Hillary is the one who said she had a public and private position."

Many politicians bracket positions publicly different than they do in private; that doesn't mean she's lying at every turn. Trump, on the other hand is pathological, and the bill he's about to sign is the exact opposite of a) his campaign promises, and b) what he says it is. The fact he's claiming this is a bad bill for him--a blatant lie--just shows how little regard he has for you, the rest of his supporters, and the rest of America.

Ultimately, if you actually believe HRC would've abandoned her tax plan promises like Trump has, you're delusional.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hillary is the one who said she had a public and private position. And that fits in with her refusal to tell us what she says when bankers pay her a few hundred thousand for an appearance."

Whatever, Trump flat out lied about protecting SS and Medicare and helping the working class, about standing up to China. Say whatever you want about Hillary, she's not running for office, but please admit that Trump is a flat out liar, he knew he was lying when he did it and he knows he's lying now, every single day he lies. Comparing him to Hillary Clinton, sorry, but on any comparison, Hillary looks sane, honest and decent.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-01 11:00 AM | Reply

"Ultimately, if you actually say you believe HRC would've abandoned her tax plan promises like Trump has, you're a liar."

FTFY

#38 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-01 11:01 AM | Reply

#36 - I didn't say she's lying at every turn. I said she was likely being deceptive and I gave you reasons for it. Namely that the oligarchy pays her millions and she won't tell us what she is telling them. And her private and public position statement was specifically about what she's telling the bankers.

If you can't respond to me without misrepresenting what I said, please refrain. Correcting strawmen is tiresome.

#39 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 11:03 AM | Reply

"I said she was likely being deceptive and I gave you reasons for it."

And I pointed out leaders often have to bracket positions. Mostly its to placate the voters. Sometimes, it's because the person has learned certain facts during a privileged meeting, and must couch the answers based only on what is allowed to be publicly known.

"Namely that the oligarchy pays her millions and she won't tell us what she is telling them. "

Well, when HRC's tax bill came out, her real positions would've been known. And I guarantee you, her plan would've matched her campaign rhetoric. That's actually how pols are supposed to play it, under normal times...not that we're in normal times.

"If you can't respond to me without misrepresenting what I said"

I misrepresented nothing. My bottom line was, and is, HRC's plan would match her rhetoric MUCH MORE than Trump's matches his. Unless you're a total moron, that's not really a debatable point.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 11:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni - of course Trump is a liar. I didn't bring up Hillary. If people would stop bringing her up as this idealized savior I would not mention her.

#41 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 11:13 AM | Reply

#40 - I pointed out what you tried to attribute to me that I didn't say. Don't lie when it is still here in writing.

What you're saying about private positions does not fit the context. Hillary was referring to what she says publicly versus what she tells rich patrons. If you refuse to acknowledge that, there is no point in this. I know what was said and on what context and you're not going to successfully obfuscate here with unnecessary hypotheticals. We know what she was talking about.

#42 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 11:20 AM | Reply

"Hillary was referring to what she says publicly versus what she tells rich patrons. If you refuse to acknowledge that, there is no point in this"

I've acknowledged it in multiple posts. Reread as many times as it takes.

"We know what she was talking about. "

You clearly don't.

Let me ask you: have you ever been told privileged information? I have, many times: I sat on the National Board of Directors for a pair of Unions, AFTRA and SAG. There were many times where I had to couch answers based on public information, carefully skirting the privileged information.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 11:26 AM | Reply

Your resume has nothing to do with what Hillary promises moneyed interests in exchange for millions paid to her campaign, foundation and to her.

You are obfuscating. Poorly.

Nobody knows what Hillary would be doing. But it would be very easy for her to favor the rich and then blame the GOP because it is never her fault to people like you. Meanwhile, the oligarchy does not pay out millions to anyone for no reason. We are where we are because they get a huge return on that type of payment.

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 11:36 AM | Reply

"Nobody knows what Hillary would be doing."

Only when they pretend every politician is as untruthful as Trump. Again, if you actually believe HRC's tax plan would be as far from her campaign promises as Trump's plan is, you're a raging idiot.

"it would be very easy for her to favor the rich and then blame the GOP because it is never her fault to people like you."

You're completely full of ----. If she put out this piece of trash, I'd be just as against it. I guess all you have is lies, now.

"Meanwhile, the oligarchy does not pay out millions to anyone for no reason."

What a dumb bar to set. ALL politicians get outsized speaking fees. Melania will, post-FLOTUS.

"We are where we are because they get a huge return on that type of payment."

But enough about Congressional Republicans and their donors.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Back to straw men for Danforth. I haven't pretended anything and told you exactly what I believe and why.

I can only occlude that your dishonesty means that you have nothing to say in response to what I really said.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 12:28 PM | Reply

"Back to straw men"

Where, specifically? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 12:33 PM | Reply

"Hillary is the one who said she had a public and private position."

Biden said the same about abortion. As a Catholic he's personally opposed; as a political matter he's okay with it.
Do you think that's a problem?
Because it's what pretty much every anti-abortion parent thinks when it's their daughter carrying a brown baby.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-01 12:33 PM | Reply

"Nobody knows what Hillary would be doing."

The Shadow knows.

(Which is kinda what you sound like. Overly dramatic. To put it mildly.)

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-01 12:36 PM | Reply

lmao... once an HDS victim (and they are all victims, just ask them) gets a shovel, they never stop digging that yuuge hole for themselves.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-01 12:46 PM | Reply

#47 you said I an pretending that every politician is as dishonest as Trump. That was another lie.

I told you exactly why we can't take Hillary at face value in terms specific to her.

Hint: it is still all here I writing, Liar.

I also haven't said that Hillary's real tax plan would be identical to Trumps. Just that we don't know how she would repay her patrons. Maybe me would have got a slightly better tax plan plus war in Ukraine or another asinine Al Qaeda team up. There is no way to know. So you people need to stop pretending you know that we'd be better off under Hillary. She is awful and we don't know what she'd be doing.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 12:51 PM | Reply

"you said I an pretending that every politician is as dishonest as Trump."

You're certainly pretending HRC is as dishonest as Trump, which is ludicrous on its face.

"I also haven't said that Hillary's real tax plan would be identical to Trumps."

I never said you did. I said HRC's plan would be closer to her campaign promises than Trump's is to his promises.

"Maybe me would have got a slightly better tax plan plus war in Ukraine or another asinine Al Qaeda team up. There is no way to know."

Oh so you're conceding the point about taxes, and then deflecting to wild scenarios, right after saying no one knows. Got it.

"you people need to stop pretending you know that we'd be better off under Hillary."

It's not pretending to state HRC would be governing better, nor is it pretending to state HRC's tax bill would look NOTHING like the one that just passed the Senate. It's also reasonable to conclude HRC comes from (and still lives in) a world where policy is expected to match rhetoric.

#52 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-01 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ok you just keep making stuff up and talking out your butt about what you know would happen if Hillary were president.

I've given up on taking you seriously because you can't stick to reality.

#53 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 01:04 PM | Reply

#53

www.youtube.com

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-01 01:10 PM | Reply

Let's cut to the chase, Sully. Do you honestly believe Hillary would sign the bill Trump is about to sign, or would she be pushing something that is less favorable to the rich?

Yes or no?

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-01 01:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Obviously it would not be identical.

I suspect it wouldn't be as bad because she would have to show at least token resistance to Ryan and the GOP. But I don't know where her tax bill would have ended up. Neither do you. Can you tell me she wouldn't have changed drastically from her campaign proposal if the polls said she can blame it all on Paul Ryan? The answer is you don't know either. But I do know that the likes of Corky and Danforth would be on board the excuse train when she did reneg.

Just like you don't know if WWIII would be brewing in Syria right now either.

Cut the "be honest" nonsense. None of you can honestly say you know for sure either. She wasn't competent enough to beat Trump so save me the glowing reviews of her abilities.

#56 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 01:27 PM | Reply

"I told you exactly why we can't take Hillary at face value in terms specific to her."

The only thing we humans can take at face value in this life is a dog.
Their faces don't lie.
Human beings like me and you tell an average of twenty lies a day.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-01 01:30 PM | Reply

- But I do know that the likes of Corky and Danforth

We can't know what Hillary would do, despite Dem policy and her previous votes, but Sulled Up can know what we would do?

That's because of his intellectual superiority... which he got by sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-01 01:32 PM | Reply

"I suspect it wouldn't be as bad"

You're an -------.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-01 01:55 PM | Reply

Haha even if true that is rich coming from you.

#60 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-01 02:31 PM | Reply

Well yeah, we can't know for sure because she isn't president. But it's nice to see you admit it wouldn't be as bad.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-02 08:42 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort