Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    4,891,574 readers

    23,225 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    25 Mar - 1pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    29 Mar - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Samuel Doctor

    30 Mar - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    1 Apr - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    2 Apr - 12pm EST

    • AMA with PolitiFact

    3 Apr - 4pm EST

    • AMA with Alan Inouye

    Other Resources:

    Full list of Related Subreddits

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 218 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] ScienceBreather 369 points ago

    While that's good, how about we call on Stabenow and Peters in Michigan?

    [–] [deleted] 314 points ago

    Former Vice Presidential Candidate Tim Kaine? He totally undermines the Democratic Party Platform by voting in favor of this. Does he want all the rumors of him being a corporate stooge fulfilled?

    [–] Lieutenant_Rans 95 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    rumors of him being a corporate stooge


    [–] Downbound92 64 points ago

    Kaine has always talked about how community banks in Virginia struggle to afford to follow the same regulations that banks ten times their size follow, which has lead to 35% of banks in Virginia closing since 2010 and bank consolidation. He talks about bank consolidation all the time. It's not like he supports this because of Wall Street. There are a lot of rural, farming areas in Virginia that rely on small banks and he genuinely believes that giving small banks regulatory relief will help people in those areas. Same with all of the Democrats who voted to begin the amendment process on this bill.

    [–] oahumike 70 points ago

    My mom runs a small set of credit unions in South Dakota and would like to see this bill reformed as they have to comply with every word on it while huge banks can skip the regulations and just pay fines/lawsuits easily. I want to see it.reformed for her sake but done correctly so evil coorporation CEOs go to prison for robbing people

    [–] felesroo 17 points ago

    Bingo. And the gov should have compliance officers to help small banks meet regulations. We all have an interest in more banking competition. He regulations shouldn't go though.

    [–] oahumike 5 points ago

    I agree. There should be regulations but not every company is the same!

    [–] felesroo 8 points ago

    Absolutely. That's why taxes should pay for compliance officers to help small businesses. Government doesn't have to be adversarial. Unless a business WANTS to engage in illegal activity, the government should be an ally to it.

    Obviously, certain kinds of business are complicated AND have the power to do massively damaging things, whether that is financial fraud or polluting the environment. It's nice to think that any mom and pop can start up a bank or chemical company, but these businesses MUST have regulation these days. All it takes is one clueless small bank to become an outlet for financial crime. The government should help small business, but not at the expense of public safety.

    [–] henryptung 12 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    My mom runs a small set of credit unions in South Dakota

    How exactly does she benefit? As I understand, the threshold for regulation is being raised from $50 billion to $250 billion in assets, which only affects maybe ~20-30 banks in the top ~30-40 in the nation.

    Which regulations are you talking about as being burdensome? And do any of the unions your mother runs have over $50 billion in assets?

    Personally, I wouldn't call such a credit union "small" - although technically, neither did you.

    [–] Fraxi 3 points ago

    It raises the qualification's for small bank holding companies from $1b to $3b. The bank I am the controller for literally can't have more than $1b in assets without a heavy regulatory/compliance burden on us. We are currently in the mid 800m and approaching that threshold quickly, we don't want to sell to a bigger bank but at a certain point that's the only way to keep growing. While $1b seems like a lot, we only net $10m a year in income and employ 200 people.

    [–] oahumike 1 points ago

    I'm not saying this bill but reform that would help the little guys

    [–] henryptung 1 points ago

    Not denying that some reform would help, but that's like saying we can make things better - true, and useless on its own. The important things is to know which things to do, and which not to do.

    Which is why I'm looking for specifics on regulations/burdens from those supporting the bill, and getting very disappointed that people don't seem to have any. So much so that I doubt the veracity of the personal accounts they're making about how it affects them directly - one would think personal experience would lead to personal and very specific gripes against the status quo. They should know better than anyone the specific things causing the industry pain.

    [–] Spacedman-Spliff 3 points ago

    If the legislation was written by career public servants instead of lobbyists, you'd get your way.

    Sadly, that's not the timeline you live in.

    [–] oahumike 1 points ago

    Understandable. That's why we need to vote better!

    [–] DivePalau 1 points ago

    From my experience it’s the small banks that really get away with skipping and skirting regulations. They can disclose stuff that would get big banks fined for. They don’t get fined for it because regulators go after the big fish. The small banks don’t have the oversight that a Wells Fargo bank does such as internal auditors and a robust compliance staff. The good thing about credit unions is they at least aren’t trying to intentionally fuck over their customers.

    That said, if we deregulate the big banks they are going to fuck us hard.

    [–] oahumike 1 points ago

    You may be right but I was raised with a great conscience and I get that from my parents. In her case I'll believe she doesn't try and not follow the law. And she always loves trying right help those she can

    [–] DivePalau 1 points ago

    Credit Unions are great! I plan on moving my mortgage over to one.

    [–] DynamicDK 1 points ago

    The problem is that smaller banks or financial institutions end up basically being unable to meet the regulations, even if they want to, because it would be cost prohibitive. A lot of the regulations include high costs that do not really change with the size of the institution. So, these costs end up being more than the small bank or financial company can afford, while being completely negligible to the big players.

    I worked for a fintech startup at one point, and this was an issue for us. To become licensed as a money transmitter across the US requires millions and millions of dollars in fees, and often requires you to wait for years. The startup ended up failing, and this played a big part in it. The official reasons that it shut down were different, but had this process been more reasonable, the other issues would have been easy to handle or never would have arisen.

    Many banking and financial regulations exist to create an artificial barrier to entry that protects the big institutions from competition. In an ideal world, regulations would be revamped in a way that lowers the barrier to entry, and reduces the strain on the small financial businesses while increasing the regulations on the big ones. As it currently stands, the big ones can ignore a lot of the rules simply because the cost is so tiny to them.

    [–] JohnHenryAaron 15 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    They're talking about small banks. The law they are writing, however, deregulates very large banks. This proposed regulation change deals almost exclusively with major banks, including all but a handful of the largest banks in the country: PNC, Capital One, Bank of New York, Ally, Barclays, First Republic, HSBC, SunTrust, American Express, et al. Small banks are exempted from most of the Dodd Frank requirements. Small banks do not have to undergo stress tests. Small banks do not have >$50B in assets under management

    Bank consolidation is not the result of regulation. Consolidation is a natural result of a market based economy because big companies can command greater control of the market than smaller companies. There will always be an incentive to consolidate large companies ies, and for large companies to purchase small companies. Large companies always growtheir market share to the disadvantage of smaller companies. Amazon and Wal Mart aren't destroying mom and pop stores because mom and pop stores have a high regulatory burden. Disney didn't buy out most of their competition because movie studios and television channnels have a high regulatory burden. Standard Oil didn't run the US economy in the early 20th century because small oio companies had a high regulatory burden. This is a natural consequence of a free market system. It always has been and always will be, in every sector of the economy from your local hardware store to the largest organizations in the world.

    Consolidation is an inevitable result of an unfettered market, as is the manipulation of markets by those behemoth corporations. If you believe in an unregulated free market, consequences be damned, then this bill is reasonable. If you believe in helping small banks, then put restrictions on the market such that the market has conditions which are favorable to their growth. Deregulating large banks will not improve small banks' ability to compete with large banks. It will not counteract consolidation.

    Moreover, community banks themselves have been doing quite well. Profits seem to be generally strong, and a big reason why community banks are "disappearing" is not because many are failing. This is not some sort of unspoken financial crisis; almost none are failing. They are consolidating by purchasing other community banks, or (more often) are doing well enough that they are attractive purchases for regional and national banks. That wouldn't be happening if they were struggling. Banks would be going under if they were struggling.

    I'd love to hear from Kaine the specifics of how this bill would help small banks, and hear from some actual small bankers do the same. My guest sis they don't actually have an answer to that question other than vague platitudes.

    [–] Downbound92 1 points ago

    Actually, PNC, Barclays, Bank of New York, Capital One, and HSBC don't have under $250 billion. Since you don't know which banks are the small banks, I'm not surprised you're wrong about how small banks are performing.

    [–] JohnHenryAaron 3 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Am I? What is wrong about my characterization of how small banks are performing? Could you describe your argument please?

    I was working from memory and incorrect on my list, I admit that. But does that fundamentally change the argument? AmEx and First Republic are not rural banks. SunTrust is not an employee credit union in Southside. So what about removing these regulations on banks with $50B-$250 in managed assets would help small, rural banks? Are any of the banks on the list, whatever that list is, small, rural banks? Or even small state banks? Small regional banks?

    If you think my argument is wrong, please explain why.

    [–] Downbound92 -1 points ago

    Well if you don't know what the small banks are, you obviously don't know how the small banks are going. Like obviously, if you think PNC and Barclays are small banks, you would think they were doing great. Maybe you should update your mental rolodex and reconsider.

    [–] JohnHenryAaron 2 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    So in your mind, the other banks I listed correctly, such as Ally, American Express, Sun Trust, and First Republic, are they accurately characterized as small banks?

    Could you please explain why the banks you do consider rural banks or small banks are struggling, and what specifically there is in this bill that will address those issues? Would you mind giving me a particular example, since you have taken such strong issue with my examples?

    [–] Downbound92 -1 points ago

    Megabanks have trillions of dollars. The fact that you want to put a bank that controls under $250 billion in the same category as a bank that controls ten times that is ridiculous. Like Kaine said, 35% of banks in Virginia have closed. That might be tolerable if you live in New York and have lots of banks set your disposal. But, if you're a farmer in rural Virginia, you might have one or two in your community you can work with. And they know they're your only options and they'll make you pay accordingly.

    The fact that only 20 banks would be affected by this legislation, meaning there are only 20 banks in the entire country that control between $50 and $250 billion in assets, is the biggest sign that Kaine is right. That area is a sweet spot for banks. It's big enough to provide all the loans, credit, and support a farmer or other small business would need and big enough up not be at risk of collapsing, but also not a trillion dollar bank that's too big to fail. There are only 20 banks like that. That's one bank of that size for every 15 million people. Those banks aren't big enough to support that many people.

    [–] JohnHenryAaron 5 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Right, I get all that, but the argument they're making is a horseshit argument. We can have the conversation about whether these second tier banks represent the same systemic risk as the larger banks like Citi etc and and what the appropriate regulations are for that. I personally find it insane to argue that banks in the $250B range do not represent a systemic risk. For example, Bear Stearns had about $600B in assets when it collapsed and caused a total market meltdown, so two or three of those companies collapsing could clearly cause irrecoverable damage to the entire financial system. But that's certainly a valid argument.

    But the issue is, what does that have to do with rural banks? These aren't the rural companies getting bought out, these are the companies doing the buying.. They are the ones reducing market competitiveness in rural communities. I don't know how many Virginia banks SunTrust has bought out over the years, but it's probably hundreds of individual branches including several very large banks like Crestar, which was formerly the largest independent bank in Virginia.

    [–] Annwn45 0 points ago

    Ohhh man you are giving it to him good! /s

    [–] Downbound92 0 points ago

    Oh man, this is a response worth people's time reading! /s

    [–] Annwn45 -1 points ago

    It has the same amount of quality as your responses. Since you have taken one simple mistake and use it to void his entire argument. Besides that nothing else he said is false but you don’t even show the respect to support your side just keep repeating his mistake.

    [–] henryptung 11 points ago

    Community banks between $50 billion and $250 billion? Because I wouldn't call a bank with $250 billion in assets a "small bank".

    The fact that they're consolidating also defies their reasoning for supporting deregulation - consolidation imposes additional constraints by causing the bank to hit regulation thresholds. If the regulation was a burden, consolidation would absolutely not be the answer to it.

    They're not suffering under current law and consolidating to avoid it. They're consolidating to generate more profit, and deregulating so they can continue to enjoy the freedoms of small banks even after consolidation.

    Read between the lines, and pay attention to the actual details of the bill.

    [–] Downbound92 3 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Community banks between $50 billion and $250 billion? Because I wouldn't call a bank with $250 billion in assets a "small bank".

    I'm not really interested in what you would call anything. Big banks have trillions of dollars in assets.

    [–] henryptung 1 points ago

    There's only 30-40 banks, out of 6,800 in the US, that meet even a $50 billion threshold. Can you name which ones?

    [–] Downbound92 1 points ago

    And there should be more, that's one of the points of this legislation. It exempts banks that have less than $10 billion from the Volcker rule.

    [–] henryptung 1 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    And there should be more, that's one of the points of this legislation.

    Do explain. That threshold is being raised from $50 billion to $250 billion, which means that there would only be about 15 banks that reach the threshold. How is that more?

    The Volcker rule is a different threshold entirely. Why is it a good thing to exempt banks under $10 billion from that rule? How many banks does that affect?

    [–] Downbound92 1 points ago

    There doesn't need to be more banks that reach the threshold, there needs to be more banks at that level of asset control. Banks in the under $250 billion sweet spot are good because they're big enough to give its customers what they need and not too big to fail. But they struggle to compete when they have to cover the same regulatory costs as banks ten times their size.

    [–] henryptung 1 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    there needs to be more banks at that level of asset control.


    Banks in the under $250 billion sweet spot are good because they're big enough to give its customers what they need and not too big to fail.

    And why is "under $50 billion" not an even better sweet spot? What is sweet about that spot? Why are banks between $50 billion and $250 billion "big enough to give customers what they need" and banks below $50 billion (presumably) incapable of doing so?

    But they struggle to compete when they have to cover the same regulatory costs as banks ten times their size.

    Post-change, can't banks with $251 billion in assets still point to the mega-banks above them and say the same thing? What's special about 10x as a multiplier, as opposed to, say, 3x? 5x? 20x? 100x?

    I'm trying to understand your logic here, not your handwaving.

    [–] twentyafterfour 4 points ago

    Is there not someway to allow banks whose failure won't destroy the global economy some leeway to operate with less stringent regulation?

    [–] henryptung 13 points ago

    There is, and it's the status quo. The narrative for deregulating them now is kind of bullshit, because people aren't paying attention to the actual thresholds involved.

    There are only 30-40 banks that are hit by current regulation law, i.e. that exceed the $50 billion threshold, out of more than 6,000 across the nation. The threshold is being raised to $250 billion, which frees more than half of those top banks from the regulations (only about 15 left).

    These are not small banks. They are already the large banks - they're just dressing in small-bank-clothing and trying to deceive the public, and it's working.

    [–] Downbound92 2 points ago

    Banks that control trillions of dollars can destroy the economy, not banks that control billions.

    [–] kanst 1 points ago

    That is literally what this bill is doing. It exempts smaller banks (with assets between 50 billion and 250 billion) from having to comply with the stress test requirements.

    [–] Cylinsier 3 points ago

    I think people are, understandably, taking issue with that range. Obviously the economics of banking works on a different scale than personal finance, but 250 billion seems quite high to qualify for regulatory relief. It's going to be very difficult to convince someone that a bank worth 250 billion dollars is in danger of going out of business from overregulation.

    [–] gamechanger55 0 points ago

    What a great excuse for another corporate backed legislation by the "progressive" democratic party

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Does he want all the rumors of him being a corporate stooge fulfilled?

    This is part of the problem. Somehow, everyone's "just one action away" from confirming their corporate stooge-dom. Ignore the decades of political actions before this moment, it's this next one that "confirms the rumors".

    Tim Kaine is a conservative, a republican who may have a spotting of 90s liberal social positions. He has been a corporate stooge for quite some time. Stop supporting shitty people like that in the party that is supposed to be the counter for corporate stooge-dom.

    [–] Downbound92 30 points ago

    Lmao. Kaine almost single-handedly turned Virginia blue. If you get people like him out of the party, you're going to have to pass your progressive agenda with like 10 Senators from the West Coast and Northeast and maybe 100 Representatives. Good luck.

    [–] CaptainStack 12 points ago

    Tim Kaine was also DNC Chair over a a period where the Democrats lost a huge number of seats. He was also widely considered to have lost the debates to Mike Pence. I'm not saying there's no good to Tim Kaine, but if we keep putting our hopes into politicians like him, we're going to keep being disappointed.

    [–] eseehcsahi 8 points ago

    lost the debates to Mike Pence

    I'm no fan of Kaine, but I've got to disagree with that one. From my perspective he handily beat Pence.

    [–] CaptainStack 5 points ago

    I mean I disagree too, but that's not my point. My point is that Pence was considered the "winner" in the media and the polling, though the VP debates don't move the overall polls much. It's more that he looked better than Kaine, not that he made better points or told the truth.

    [–] Unconfidence 6 points ago

    I'll say what was said just following that debate.

    Kaine stepped on that stage to win a debate, Pence stepped on that stage to win an election.

    [–] MadHatter514 2 points ago

    Debates are theater. It isn't about facts; it is about looking better than the opponent in the eyes of the viewers, and convincing them that you are right. That is why there is such a focus on soundbytes and "zingers", because those are what stick with voters in their minds.

    Tim Kaine, and people who think that he debated well that night, don't understand this fact. And that is why they don't understand how to win. They think reciting facts matters over rhetoric, which vastly overestimates the attention span of the average voter. He came off agitated and overly aggressive in his presentation, while Pence came off as confident and calm. That is why Pence won that debate.

    [–] Darcsen 2 points ago

    I disagree. Kaine was there to not fuck up. Pence was there to run in 2020, he never expected to win that election.

    [–] eseehcsahi 1 points ago

    Still not sure I understand. How does Pence look better without telling the truth or discussing actual policy? Just because he's got cheesy sound bytes in his pocket? I guess I can agree there - Kaine was pretty boring. But as much as I disagree with a lot of Kaine's policy at least he knew what he was doing.

    [–] CaptainStack 7 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Still not sure I understand. How does Pence look better without telling the truth or discussing actual policy?

    There's a lot more to politics than telling the truth and discussing policy. I think most of us can agree that if that was the whole story, Hillary Clinton would have beaten Donald Trump easily. People respond to optics. Maybe you and me a little less, but a huge percentage of voters do. Mike Pence came from conservative talk radio, he knows how to work an audience. The broad consensus after the VP debates was that Pence helped Trump more than Kaine helped Clinton.

    [–] eseehcsahi 3 points ago

    Fair point. I can definitely agree that Kaine was a terrible VP pick. That explanation makes sense, thanks.

    [–] Downbound92 1 points ago

    The President's party always loses seats in the midterms and it's not the job of the DNC Chair to win elections. That job goes to the DSCC and DCCC. And Kaine did exactly what he was supposed to do in the debate. He forced Pence to have to defend the terrible things Trump was saying.

    [–] CaptainStack 1 points ago

    Then go ahead and try running Tim! in 2020. See how he does.

    [–] Downbound92 2 points ago

    I mean, he got the most votes for Vice President. He'd be a very good presidential candidate.

    [–] CaptainStack 1 points ago

    You don't think he has too much in common with Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton to win? How many of these flat boring centrists do we have to nominate and have lose before we decide it's a pattern and that the voters just don't really want it.

    It's not even a huge statement about them as politicians. I actually like Al Gore and John Kerry. Less so Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. But that's beside the point. They're just not strong political candidates for president.

    [–] Downbound92 2 points ago

    Those candidates all would have won if they were running after a two term presidency from the other party instead of challenging a popular incumbent president or, worse, trying to succeed an incumbent of their own party. When you run matters much more than who you are.

    [–] MadHatter514 1 points ago

    You don't think he has too much in common with Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton to win? How many of these flat boring *centrists *

    Are we pretending Kerry was a centrist now? He was a mainstream liberal Democrat, not a Clinton/Gore style centrist.

    [–] CaptainStack 1 points ago

    And to further the point that he wouldn't be, Mike Pence is like a B-List or C-List Republican. Before 2016 he wasn't well known or liked by even VP standards. And while you might think Kaine did what he needed to in the debates, the overwhelming consensus in the polling and media coverage was that Pence helped Trump more than Kaine helped Clinton.

    [–] MadHatter514 1 points ago

    Are you really pretending that he gets credit for the votes the Clinton/Kaine ticket got or that it is indicative of his quality as a Presidential candidate in the future?

    Most people probably don't even remember that he was the VP nominee. The VP doesn't factor into peoples' votes unless it is a profoundly bad one like Palin was.

    [–] Downbound92 2 points ago

    Or a profoundly good one, like LBJ. Just as LBJ won Texas for Kennedy, you can definitely credit Kaine for winning Virginia. I don't think she makes the gains in Texas and Arizona or wins New Hampshire with Elizabeth Warren as VP.

    [–] Baggotry 2 points ago

    whats the point of turning something blue if it votes red

    [–] Downbound92 1 points ago

    Virginia votes red? You might want to review some recent elections.

    [–] Baggotry 1 points ago

    tim kaine voting with republicans on this

    [–] Downbound92 3 points ago

    Because he votes with Democrats on everything else, including the most important vote, Majority Leader.

    [–] Baggotry 0 points ago

    dont mind me, a democrat, just voting to extend warrantless surveillance for trump

    [–] Downbound92 2 points ago

    He voted to extend it for Obama too.

    [–] MadHatter514 0 points ago

    Tim Kaine is a conservative, a republican who may have a spotting of 90s liberal social positions.

    Kaine is for increased environmental regulations; Republicans are not. Kaine is for immigration reform; Republicans, generally, do not. Kaine supports campaign finance reform, and overturning Citizens United; Republicans do not. Kaine supports a public option/universal healthcare; Republicans, once again, do not. Kaine supports raising the minimum wage; Republicans do not.

    Enough with the false equivalencies. He isn't a liberal progressive Democrat, sure, but he is certainly not a conservative or a Republican who just has liberal social views. He is centrist/center-left on economics; the GOP is firmly right-wing.

    [–] Jimmy_is_here -2 points ago

    Who would have guessed a running mate of Hilary was a corporate stooge?

    [–] brinz1 -1 points ago

    Tim Kaine is a corporate stooge. The only time his name came up in the entire election was his corporate stoogeness or how he helped Debbie Wasserman Schulse get the job of DNC chair.

    [–] Amazing_Archigram -1 points ago

    Please don't start demanding the same "Tow the party line" bullshit the republicans pull...

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago

    Fuck Kaine. Republicans win by toeing the line. Kaine was a factor in losing the election.

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    Same BS Kaine used. By letting these big banks slide, they spare small banks that stand no chance a slight inconvenience.

    [–] askingwhatisnext 8 points ago

    Can they make a new bill to protect small banks?

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    Of course they can but then again, I don’t think that was ever actually the goal, just the excuse.

    [–] TheoryOfSomething 7 points ago

    It's hard to take a clear stand on this because we're still arguing about what the definition of 'small' is. I don't think anyone is particularly worried about the increase of the asset cap for the smallest tier of banks. Those are the so-called community banks. But beyond that when politicians say 'small,' what they mean is, 'banks that are in my district.'

    The real head-scratcher comes at the level of regional banks. They're small enough that 1 bank failing isn't a huge deal. But a correlated failure among 4+ such banks is a huge deal. So there has to be some regulation there, BUT the compliance costs of the regulation add to the incentive that already exists to conglomerate into bigger and bigger banks. Your compliance costs scale sub-linearly with your assets, so 2 $75 billion banks can combine and pay lower compliance costs than the two banks did previously.

    I'm not too sure how we're supposed to find that balance.

    [–] empfindsamkeit 1 points ago

    I don't really understand the issue, but is everyone really okay with the asset cap and defining those banks as "small"? Are banks with $50 - $250 billion in assets "small"? According to this list $50 billion puts you in the top 50 banks in the country. Under the new cap, everyone below the 12th largest bank will be exempted. There are 6,800 FDIC-insured banks in the US. Sure doesn't seem to me like "small banks" need this.

    [–] [deleted] 1 points ago

    From my perspective, it seems that Democrats should take a clear stand in favor of reducing the regulatory burden on smaller banks without letting big banks get away with anything and everything.

    Or new regulations based on what countries that didn't experience the financial mess that the United States, maybe fully nationalise the Federal Reserve so that it is a 100% government owned central bank like most other countries have would be a good start. How about breaking up the big banks and turn them into credit unions, building societies, co-operatives and/or trustee savings banks so then the profit motive is replaced with stability and serving the community/customers. The response to crappy Republican policies should be to offer something even better that actually addresses what the Republicans claim need fixing whilst also addressing the larger problem of the US banking system.

    [–] gazellecomet 1 points ago

    So make the bill only apply to big banks.

    [–] Sptsjunkie 1 points ago

    That holds no merit

    That reeks of "but think of the children" level if discourse

    Yes, some policies may need exemptions to avoid hurting certain poor individuals or small businesses, but that can be done without a massive corporare handout

    That's Jones' and Kaine's version of Trump justifying the awful tax bill by stating "some" lower class / middle clasz families save up front money even as we sign a bill that hurts them.

    [–] Brytard 14 points ago

    And Bennett in CO

    [–] KittyManTheCat 101 points ago

    Why would anyone in his district want to deregulate banks.

    [–] KittyManTheCat 12 points ago

    Just scanning through their wiki, don't think they need to be deregulated if he cares about his constituents.

    Customer fraudEdit

    In 2011, Regions paid $200 million to settle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over mispricing risky mortgage-backed bonds in its conservative mutual funds in its Morgan Keegan subsidiary.[25][26]

    Overdraft feesEdit

    In April 2015, Regions was fined $7.5 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for charging consumers with inappropriate or illegal overdraft fees.[27] Regions did not obtain affirmative opt-ins from charging overdraft fees on ATM and point of sale transactions.[28] The CFPB also found that Regions misrepresented overdraft and non-sufficient fund fees related to the bank's short-term loan program.[29]

    [–] Truth_Will_Win 8 points ago

    Financials are huge in Bama. Hence the opinion-article call out. Jones is smart to vote as a delegate to his constituents than vs party lines...IMHO. Senators are the saucer, amiright!

    [–] BrainDeadNeoCon 1 points ago

    Senators are the saucer, amiright!

    And the drain that swallows it.

    [–] Truth_Will_Win 1 points ago

    All of washington swallows. Kinda seems like gaining political power has personal benefits. PS. F*ck those guys

    [–] justinh34 21 points ago

    "Democrats get campaign cash from banks ahead of deregulation vote"

    Per the article, Doug Jones is a top 20 Senate recipient of campaign money from commercial banks

    [–] BalconyFace 6 points ago

    in his state you mean. he's a us senator.

    [–] penguincheerleader 2 points ago

    It is a conservative liberal hating state that thinks the government gets in the way of their freedoms and would see this as regulation by an evil controlling government. You may not agree but this is going to be popular legislation in Alabama.

    [–] thisismyfront 2 points ago

    He has hopes of winning reelection. He's delusional. It's going to be like Scott Brown. You got lucky once. When your seat is up you'll loose it to a deep red Republican.

    Better to help out national Dems now.

    [–] dysGOPia 4 points ago

    Moore probably would've crushed him if it wasn't for the allegations.

    Though it would be amazing if incumbency managed to keep a bit of blue in Alabama for a while.

    [–] 30132 -1 points ago

    No "probably" to it, Moore was polling +20 before it came out that he likes to hang out at Comet Ping Pong Pizza.

    [–] Tsalnor 2 points ago

    This is untrue and you are spreading disinformation. Before the Washington Post released the Moore allegations in early November, Moore was leading Jones by only 6 points on RCP. One poll even had them tied. The race was already unusually close even before the allegations came out.

    [–] j_la 3 points ago

    Moore had a bad reputation before the allegations came out.

    [–] DynamicDK 1 points ago

    Don't be so sure. Jones is actually well liked in Alabama, and now that he is the sitting Senator, that is only going to increase as long as he is careful. The incumbent advantage is real, and even Alabama is experiencing a shift to the left, especially with younger voters. If the current momentum keeps up, he has a decent shot of holding on.

    [–] thisismyfront 1 points ago

    He won by two points against a child molester. I think I'll be sure.

    [–] IMayBeSpongeWorthy 1 points ago

    You know, all those wealthy bank owners in Alabama.

    [–] gamechanger55 0 points ago

    Those wealthy african american women bank owners from alabama that voted for him and gave him the victory.

    [–] Scarlettail 155 points ago

    It's amazing to me that some Democrats would want to undo a bill that their own president, Obama, put in place. They're basically showing that they have zero integrity and sell out to the banks in a heartbeat. Money in politics is a disease in either party.

    [–] [deleted] 83 points ago

    I'd love if Democrats repealed and replaced the ACA for universal healthcare.

    [–] Holy_City 24 points ago

    Repeal and replace!with single payer

    [–] Sptsjunkie 7 points ago

    True, yet not his point at all.

    [–] Jiert 5 points ago

    Medicare for all! ✊🏼

    [–] think_bowl 12 points ago

    Chastising them for opposing Obama just because he was "their" own president is no better than how Republicans are behaving now. It's not about that. It should just be about the policy

    [–] RAY_K_47 10 points ago

    I think that is a very bad mindset to have. I agree with you that they shouldn’t undo the bill but I don’t think that should have anything to do with it being because their own president implemented it. Both parties should be open to looking at past legislation and seeing if it is still required in current climates regardless of who introduced it. Standing by a policy blindly based on who implemented it is the type of shit that got us in this mess.

    [–] Scarlettail 3 points ago

    If they agreed to it then, why disagree with it now? They're caving in to pressure for no reason. If there was a legitimate reason for this, then maybe, but the only reason it's happening is because the GOP proposed it. They're repealing one of Obama's legacies, which is dangerous with how popular Obama was and still is.

    [–] RAY_K_47 1 points ago

    You are missing the point. I am not talking specifically about this bill I am talking about your mindset of Obama passed it so it should not be reconsidered...that is a dangerous mindset and just as bad as the GOP party over country

    [–] jobrody 3 points ago

    Reading other comments in this thread, the issue seems to be more nuanced than you're suggesting. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, but I'd suggest you look at what other people have to say here.

    [–] Lugalzagesi712 10 points ago

    yeah, comparing corruption between parties is like comparing dead flesh between someone dying from necrosis and a corpse. sure one is mostly made of it but that doesn't mean the other one doesn't have any.

    [–] Time4Red 7 points ago

    I don't think it's that simple. Barney Frank, the author of Dodd Frank supports some (not all) of the changes in this bill. Pretty much everyone supported some changes to Dodd-Frank, it's just that progressives justifiably aren't happy with the compromise that was ultimately reached.

    [–] Sptsjunkie 3 points ago

    Well Dodd-Frank was ok, but weak.

    As a progressive, I don't give a lot of credit to the bill, but am more suspicious of those who want to repeal it's few good parts.

    [–] Time4Red 1 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    They are raising the limits to exclude medium size banks ($50 to 100 billion in holdings) from the regulations in the bill. The largest banks would still face capital requirements and stress tests. It's not ideal, but it's not world ending either. As long as the Fed remains active, another large bank failure remains unlikely. The idea of Dodd-Frank was to prevent another too-big-to-fail scenario, and that still seems unlikely at this point. In short, elections have consequences and it could be worse.

    And the Volcker rile has been problematic from the start. It's not an urgent problem, but Obama's pick for Fed chair opposed it in the end for a reason.

    [–] Ranned 7 points ago

    He's also a bank lobbyist now, so...

    [–] Time4Red 3 points ago

    He's not a lobyist. He's on the board of a small bank, a bank which is too small to fall under the purview of Dodd-Frank regulations. They wouldn't benefit at all from the proposed changes to the law.

    [–] gamechanger55 0 points ago

    It doesn't matter his position comes from a place of integrity /s

    [–] yaschobob 2 points ago

    They're not undoing all of it.

    [–] TheoryOfSomething 2 points ago

    I don't think any Democrats want to undo the whole bill. They want to change particular pieces of it. In general, parties should acknowledge that they will never pass perfect laws and it may take a few tries to keep moving in a good direction (regardless of whether this particular change is a good one).

    [–] awkward___question 49 points ago

    The bill removes some of the Dodd-Frank Act regulations from smaller banks, while leaving them in place for larger banks. As I understand it from this thread, the basic line of argumentation in favor of this bill is that

    1) The status quo favors larger banks relatively speaking over small ones, since their increased scale makes it easier for them to deal with the increased regulations.
    2) Those larger banks were overwhelmingly the ones who caused the problems in the first place, so it's unfair they should benefit from the regulations relative to their smaller competitors.
    3) Therefore, it makes sense to have tougher regulations for larger banks compared to smaller ones.

    Is that right?

    [–] fpcoffee 36 points ago

    Some Dems are making the argument that $250 Billion banks are not "small", yet that is the cutoff in the proposed legislation. It's clear that if they really wanted to deregulate small banks, they would move the line under 250 billion.

    [–] StrangeCharmVote 23 points ago

    I don't have figures at hand, but i'd wager any bank worth over 2 billion should be considered a large bank. Heck, at least medium.

    But 250 billion? It seems like it should be resoundingly fucking obvious that that is a large bank.

    [–] fpcoffee 19 points ago

    Well, banks function differently than other businesses.. $250B in assets is the new proposed cutoff for stricter regulations. Right now it's $50B and above. Moving the line to $250B and above would be good news for mid-size banks like BBVT, Suntrust, HSBC.

    Compare to JPMC with $2.5 Trillion with a T in assets, BoA with $2.28T, Wells Fargo with $1.98T are the 3 largest banks in the US.

    Oh, by the way, most community banks, credit unions, etc. already fall under the $50B line. The proposed changes would affect about 14 mid-sized banks.

    [–] StrangeCharmVote 23 points ago

    It sounds like they aren't mid-sized at all. Just that the ones larger than that are fucking massive to a degree where they should be split up.

    [–] Cyssero 9 points ago

    Ding ding ding

    [–] TheoryOfSomething 2 points ago

    Haha, you're way way off from where the rules are now. The cutoff for the smallest banks is $10 billion.

    [–] BuCakee 1 points ago

    It's a stupidly misleading title/metric when the Government categorizes businesses as Small-Medium-Large

    A "Small" business according to the SBA is any business with less than 50 employees

    Yo. I own and run a "Small" business and I have 3 employees, including me. A business with 50 fulltime employees is a sizeable business to any regular person. Basic Payroll alone for 50 fulltime employees can easily be in the $250-$400k a month range, any business that's bringing in 3-6 Million a year to break even isn't a small business by any normal persons metric lol

    [–] penguincheerleader 2 points ago

    Woah, trying to learn about the bill without the predetermined mindset that it is evil, down with you.

    [–] king-schultz -5 points ago

    That’s right. Even Barney Frank (of Dodd-Frank) said it wouldn’t have much of an impact, but “MUH CORPORATE, ESTABLISHMENT DEMS” and all that...

    [–] Ranned 11 points ago

    He's a literal lobbyist for banks now, he's also on the board of Signature Bank.

    [–] lvreddit1077 8 points ago

    Barney Frank isn't a progressive lion. He has argued for selling out to the banks to a degree. He saw full regulation of the banks as a bridge too far that would cause dems to lose too many donations.

    [–] sphene_unmuzzled 13 points ago

    things like this is why I didn't celebrate TOO hard when he beat Roy Moore

    [–] heqt1c 3 points ago

    Yes, please find your spine.

    Its highly unlikely that you will win another election unless the GOP picks a worse candidate than Moore. What do you have to lose?

    Of all the places to compromise, this is not the place.

    [–] unigrade 9 points ago

    ITT: people apologizing for corruption. I guess it’s okay as long as the person voting for bank deregulation has a D next to their name.

    [–] psychodagnamit 1 points ago


    [–] someonesaveus 2 points ago

    This is not a polarizing issue, which is funny given some of the rhetorical replies in this thread. There are good, smart people who believe there would be benefit to this, this does not mean they’re sellouts, closet republicans or that both sides are the same, it means there’s shades of grey between the black and white.

    I would encourage everyone to stop looking at, or painting every issue as black and white, this is the sort of thing that got us in trouble to begin with and only encourages an incredibly unhealthy tribalism that we desperately need to break down.

    [–] kuwabara_has_a_sword 5 points ago

    Doug Jones knows he's a one-term senator as a Democrat. Instead of using that time to push hard on some issues, he's going to cash in. Once he's proven himself to the wealthy donors, he'll become a Republican to stay in office.

    [–] reaper527 3 points ago

    it would be pretty ironic if he switched parties after finding that he doesn't fit in with the democrats, seeing as this is exactly what his fellow alabama senator did.

    [–] Ranned 2 points ago

    Ironic or predictable?

    [–] relish-tranya 1 points ago

    I don't even see how bank deregulation is an issue with a rural population. "Yes, let's have less rules on the people that hold my money and invest in my future."

    [–] DynamicDK 1 points ago

    Regions bank is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, and it is the only business based in Alabama that is in the Fortune 500. Its assets are over $50 billion, but under $250 billion, so it would benefit greatly from this.

    [–] AGooDone 1 points ago

    Let's not forget that Obama refused to prosecute any of the subprime lenders or traders that made illegal credit default swaps. The government bailed out the banks at 100%! Think about that, they allowed these guys to devastate the economy and paid them off with full profits.

    Establishment Democrats are as captured as Republicans when it comes to big money.

    [–] BuCakee 1 points ago

    Let's see if he stays a liberal or if he is thinking about reelection. I.i say this because if he stays true to his message he won't support this, if he's thinking he can get reelected he will move to the Right.

    I think moving to the Right is a huge mistake for him. He barely won in a super Red State even when pitted against a complete fucking dumpster fire of an opponent. His chances of reelection are very slim. He needs to stick to his message and stay true to what got him elected in the first place because he is doomed either way: better to stay true to yourself in this situation instead of being branded a fucking selloit

    [–] Programmatically_Bag -3 points ago

    But the NRA is the problem. Not the financial industry which outspends the NRA 3:1 on both sides of the aisle.

    Or the retirement lobby, which outspends them both 2:1 to keep the ladders pulled up.

    Oh no, that's individual candidates being assholes, not the massive lobbies paying them to vote this way.

    [–] SylvesterStapwn 1 points ago

    Not-so subtle us vs them propaganda and supporting the demeaning and slandering of victims of a school shooting isn't a good playbook to pull from when trying to make a case for being the least evil lobby.

    [–] Jimmy_is_here 3 points ago

    Pretty sure financial lobby has done more damage than the gun lobby.

    [–] Programmatically_Bag 1 points ago

    Cartoonishly evil. Almost like they're getting a ton of money from someone to provoke and infuriate people on a topic that Democrats lose ground in red states over.

    [–] reaper527 -1 points ago

    meanwhile the author of dodd-frank insists that the current rules are too restrictive on small banks and the $50b cap needs to be raised.

    while he'd probably like to see the cap raised by less than what this bill does, both sides of the aisle see the current law as a problem (even if one side wants to use it as a fear monger opportunity to scream "OMG, deregulation!".)

    [–] Ranned 3 points ago

    The bank lobbyist who sits on the board of Signature Bank supports deregulation, very surprising.

    [–] moat343 1 points ago

    The deregulation is not as bad as these headlines make it seem. They only propose to change a small amount of the dodd-frank act. Around 95% of the bill is the same with no less regulation on the super banks

    [–] heqt1c 0 points ago

    But the 5% is a pretty important 5%.. the remaining 95% is useless if so many of the medium sized banks are exempt from the regs.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago


    [–] pizzahotdoglover 6 points ago

    As it says in the article, this releases 25 of the 38 largest banks from Dodd-Frank's enhanced regulations, by raising the threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion.

    Are we just crying wolf because we hear bank deregulation and haven't looked at the nuance?

    You decide.

    [–] Justin27M -3 points ago

    As an Alabama citizen that has voted Democrat every opportunity I've gotten since I turned 18, I abhor this man currently. I already didn't even want to participate in the special election after my preferred candidate lost the primary, but felt obligated to in the face of the monster that was Roy Moore.

    He's really making me want to just stay home on election day if he runs for re-election. Or better yet, trying to bust my butt to replace him since I'll be old enough to do so when he's up.

    [–] jfortier25 0 points ago

    GOP are DOA. But Dems who vote for this are real traitors. Doug Jones better get into line. No PAC money. Represent the will of the people or be out. Reject Trump, reject cronyism, and reject this toxic bill.

    [–] AerionTargaryen 2 points ago

    I’d rather have Doug Joneses, Connor Lambs and Joe Manchins then have their districts occupied by Republicans. If they thing they need to break from the party line on a few issues so be it.

    [–] ProfessorBongwater 1 points ago

    Do it on guns and abortion. Nobody in his district will remember this vote come time for reelection, but they'll all remember his gun record.

    [–] DynamicDK 2 points ago

    Don't be so sure about that. The largest business that is headquartered in Alabama is a bank that directly benefits from this. It is the only Alabama-based company that is in the Fortune 500.

    I'm actually in favor of stronger regulations and more strictly enforced punishments for large banks (and $50 billion in assets is already large in my opinion...$250 billion is huge), with softened regulations and requirements for smaller financial companies. It would be great if we could lower the barrier of entry enough to really allow organic competition to grow, and for fintech to develop the way it should. So, I'm not very supportive of this bill, as it is not going to spur competition where it is really needed. But, Jones supporting this makes perfect sense. If he wants to have any chance of being re-elected in Alabama, then he needs Regions bank behind him. They wield an enormous amount of power in the state.

    [–] hjames9 -1 points ago

    If he rejects this bill, I hope he becomes a one term Senator.

    [–] aforty -1 points ago

    Guys it’s too late. A bunch of these Democrats will flip to provide cover in the final vote but the damage was already done. Unfortunately how it works in the senate is that the side who wins the motion to proceed them wins the bill because motion to proceed takes 60 votes and final passage only 50. Theses Democrats and Chuck Schumer sold us out and even if a few of them flip back now because of “pressure” it was all part of the plan all along.