Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1024core | Hacker News Reader

This lies solely on Obama's shoulders. Don't get me wrong: I campaigned for the guy in 2008, so I'm no right-wing-nut. But I have been very disappointed in how he's let them off with a slap on the wrist. Between this (lack of prosecution) and the drone campaign, he's been a big disappointment for me.

View on HN

This may be too pragmatic on my part but please consider the alternative before you think you made a really bad choice. Imagine if McCain/Palin had been elected in 2008 and/or Romney/Ryan had been elected in 2012 - I can imagine this 5B "slap on the wrist" turning into a "pat on the back" for this vaunted job creator (i.e. Goldman Sachs).

I agree with both. If i was given the same choice today, I'd still vote for Obama. I'd still be choosing from the lesser of two evils, though

> Imagine if McCain/Palin had been elected in 2008 and/or Romney/Ryan had been elected in 2012 - I can imagine this 5B "slap on the wrist" turning into a "pat on the back" for this vaunted job creator (i.e. Goldman Sachs).

This says more about your preconceptions than it does about anything in the real world, where John McCain joined Elizabeth Warren in introducing a bill to bring back Glass-Steagall and Mitt Romney has pointed out that Dodd-Frank was a gigantic gift to the New York banks.

That's a pretty aggressive tone on your part but I will try to respond.

You may be right about Sen. McCain but can you say the same about Palin? Further while I am happy to learn that he worked with Sen. Warren on trying to bring back Glass-Steagall, his eagerness to involve America in foreign wars is repulsive to some [3]. Nonetheless he is a class act and an American hero - in my opinion, people became afraid of his candidacy when Palin joined the ticket.

Romney campaigned in 2012 on a promise to repeal ObamaCare, which was based on Massachusetts' RomneyCare [1]. He made the "47%" comment. He is also known to have said "corporations are people too, my friend." [2] It is unclear to me that he is as good for the middle class as he is for corporations, compared to President Obama.

I maintain that McCain/Palin in 2008 and/or Romney/Ryan in 2012 would not have been as good for the US as the current administration. That remains my pragmatic opinion.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/23/mitt-romney-admits-romneycare...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corpo...

[3] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/john-mccain-worl...

Is a 5B settlement a slap on the wrist? Goldman's yearly revenue is 40B a year, while profit is ~8B last year and may be closer to 4-5B this year. Would it be better if they were sued out of existence? Is this enough penalty for them to never to it again in the future? Could the gov't legally be able to get more?

Yes. When the fine is less than the overall profit, and they can write it off via taxes, then it is not even a tickle on the wrist.

CEO, every member of the board, every manager in that division that made and sold the products, fine 100% of their pay, fine 4x revenue - not profits for the products affected, and do not let them write the costs off.

Is this fine tax deductible? What, then, is even the point?

Getting to write articles like this to make prosecutors look good, and for people feel like big bad Goldman Sachs is getting hurt.

Here's another thing to grind your gears: much of the fine will be paid in "consumer relief," which so far has meant a tax writeoff upfront, then negligible consumer relief.

No, it's not tax deductible.

Even if it is tax deductible, 'all' you're getting is a tax shield of your tax rate, if it's 30%, you still pay 70% of the fine. That's still about 50% of their annual net profit. It's nowhere near enough to me, but to say a 30% discount on a fine makes the fine pointless is exaggerated.

Either way though, no it's not tax deductible.

Whilst 5B is a huge sum, will it deter GS executives from repeating the act in the future?

Will the people responsible go to jail or pay from their personal wealth -made due to their "bad" desicions?

> Is a 5B settlement a slap on the wrist?

Yes it is, since no one went to jail (I'm assuming).

The govt getting 5B isn't the people getting any money they would've gotten. A penalty paid to the govt isn't paid to those who's wealth was reduced.

It's bigger than Obama. You pretty much can't get anything done in Washington without pandering to Wall Street. Executive power is one thing, but money ultimately makes all the decisions.

Also, if you piss off Wall Street, where will you go to work once your gov't tenure runs out?

Yep. Same boat here. I voted for hope and change. Got Bush-lite.

Bernie Sanders seems like the only candidate in a long time that would be tough on this stuff, though they all promise to be tough on Wall Street.

If you think Obama has been stonewalled by Congress, having Sanders in office will open your eyes.

lol, the ACA passed without a single republican vote. This is just a BS "us vs them" rationalization... either you actually mean "Obama has been stonewalled by Democratic Party infighting", or you're just being disingenuous.

The ACA was passed in the early days of the Obama administration. When Congress had the following numbers:

          D   R   I
  Senate  57  41  2
  House   255 179

In 2010 the distribution changed, so the 112th Congress (2011-2013) had this distribution:

          D   R   I
  Senate  51  47  2
  House   193 242

113th:

          D   R   I
  Senate  53  45  2
  House   201 234

114th (current):

          D   R   I  V(acant)
  Senate  44  54  2
  House   188 246    1

Further, the Republicans have tried to repeal it 62 times [1] without offering a viable option, fortunately without success so far.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/house-votes-to...

EDIT: syntax.

The Congressional Democratic caucuses in the years 2009-2016 obstructed the Obama Administration's legislative agenda?

Sanders has worked with both sides of the Congress for decades. He has the record for the maximum number of amendments approved.

I encourage everyone to join your local political party, work on a campaign, help with endorsements, lobby for some policy change, and even run for office. Heck, just pick an issue and attend every relevant public hearing, just to see how policy is forged.

Once you see the game up close, you'll see that most everyone's acting completely predictably, rationally.

Mostly, the problem is the politics of attention. So many fires, so little time. Whoever screams loudest gets action. Bad things happen on the down-low when no one is watching.

I also learned that politicians and bureaucrats do not play to win. Rather they play to not lose. A real-life version of Survivor. No matter what they do, or not do, it'll come back to bite them in the ass. So the pack only moves when it's "safe", like responding to "overwhelming" public pressure.

> I encourage everyone to join your local political party,

The problem is: the Democratic Establishment is basically no different than the GOP when it comes to these matters. Case in point: the only reason the Carried Interest loophole is still around is because of Chunk Schumer, Democrat. He prevents Democrats from working on repealing it, and the GOP is more than happy to help him out. And Feinstein is very pro-war and pro-surveillance. And the PATRIOT Act renewal, as well as NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping getting approved, wouldn't have happened without Democrat support.

My point is: both parties are bad. We need a rational, third party with a clear agenda. I'd be happy to work on getting it off the ground, if people are interested. Start small, and slowly work your way up. Most third parties (like Independent, Green and Libertarian) just put up Presidential candidates, and don't do much else, which is ridiculous.

There is no Democratic Establishment. Just cabals of people protecting their power. At the national level, things like names, logos, bumberstickers are just tribal identifiers.

I'd be happy to work on getting it off the ground, if people are interested.

Less talk, more walk. Convert your outrage into action.

Find your local party, regardless of flavor (Green, Socialist, GOP, Democrat). Join. Pull your weight.

If you can't find your party, start a new one on meetup.com.

Pick an issue that pisses you off. Write a resolution. Persuade dozens of people to sign it. Present it to your council. Draft a bill. Use your new found tribe to pressure your representatives to sponsor and then pass it. Use your petition's popularity to change your party's platform. Send a press release to all your local media outlets. Write op eds. Meets with other interest groups to find allies.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Oh, don't forget the whole spying+ prosecution of leakers/media thing.

> Don't get me wrong: I campaigned for the guy in 2008, so I'm no right-wing-nut.

Was this disclaimer really necessary for your comment? No need for the emotional credibility; just make your argument.

You're downvoted, but I think you deserve an answer: It shouldn't be necessary, but people are all too willing to lump someone into a camp and attack them on that basis, so it's often necessary to note when you are doing something against the direction you'd normally be biased so people don't make that conclusion.

Getting downvotes for pointing out how problematic these types of disclaimers are? Evidently you can only criticize the president legitimately if you're not a "right-wing nut." How about the argument stand on its own regardless of political affiliation.

It is, because otherwise people would downvote him, probably assuming he's a bible-thumping conservative who's voting for Trump.

Bipartisanship has been poisoning this country for decades. Symptoms are only increasing in intensity.

And here I was assuming HN was a place for rational discussion. We now downvote people if we assume them to be part of an un-agreeable ideology to the master ideology on HN. Got it.

I just wanted to put it in the right context. There's a group of people for whom Obama can do no right; I'm not in that group. My point is: I was a strong supporter, and while I think he was better than the alternatives, I still believe that he could have done much more given the mandate he had.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com