Menu
Menu
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The crypto lobby's growing influence is a big worry. They often don't stand up for regular American crypto investors. Instead, regulators target big crypto companies whose founders have made huge profits from these small investors. This focus shows a big gap in how different parts of the industry are treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Their support seems effective since many of the candidates who favor cryptocurrencies and receive their backing have emerged victorious in their House and Senate races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's growing influence is a big worry. They often don't stand up for regular American crypto investors. Instead, regulators target big crypto companies whose founders have made huge profits from these small investors. This focus shows a big gap in how different parts of the industry are treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
It is very interesting to note that Fairshake along with its partners poured a huge amount into advertising for the primaries. The amount was approximately $37 million. This information is reported by AdImpact. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their support seems effective since many of the candidates who favor cryptocurrencies and receive their backing have emerged victorious in their House and Senate races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's growing influence is a big worry. They often don't stand up for regular American crypto investors. Instead, regulators target big crypto companies whose founders have made huge profits from these small investors. This focus shows a big gap in how different parts of the industry are treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Fairshake spent over $2 million on ads against Bowman in the New York primary. Other big crypto companies like Ripple, Coinbase, and Andreessen Horowitz also donated millions to Fairshake. Their goal was to protect their interests from politicians like Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is against cryptocurrency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is very interesting to note that Fairshake along with its partners poured a huge amount into advertising for the primaries. The amount was approximately $37 million. This information is reported by AdImpact. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their support seems effective since many of the candidates who favor cryptocurrencies and receive their backing have emerged victorious in their House and Senate races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's growing influence is a big worry. They often don't stand up for regular American crypto investors. Instead, regulators target big crypto companies whose founders have made huge profits from these small investors. This focus shows a big gap in how different parts of the industry are treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In June 2018, the biggest global banks (G-SIBs) had a strong Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.47 percent. Over the past six years, federal bank regulators allowed these banks to lower their capital levels by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. Now, even with new Basel III rules in place, these banks aren't required to bring their capital ratios back up to the 2018 levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These megabanks have taken advantage of their status, named as \u201c\"too big to fail\u201d. The combined Tier 1 leverage ratio of these banks had dropped to 7.24 percent.at the end of 2023. This ratio is less than the ratio required to bank with assets between $100 billion and $1 trillion (9.22 percent). Also the regional banks with assets between $10 billion and $100 billion (9.76 percent). And community banks with assets under $10 billion (10.52 percent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important for regulators to make these big banks keep more of their own money in backup. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, Stronger rules requiring banks to keep more of their own money on hand would protect the public from the huge costs of financial crises. When banks face a crisis such as during 2008, then it's the responsibility of the government to spend trillions to bail them out. During the trouble and regional bank crisis the government spent billions to make the banks stable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This increased government debt significantly, which could hurt the value of US Treasury bonds and the dollar in future crises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To prevent such loss, it is necessary for banks to hold more of their own money as a buffer. And the best way for it is to do permanent investment by stocks. Permanent investment dont need to be repaid or pay interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to fulfill the requirement of Basel III Endgame,the Minneapolis Fed wants big banks to increase their own money in reserves by 15%. The allocated time period for it is more than 5 years. In this way the banks get safer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks don't like Basel III Endgame because they want to use more borrowed money. Regulators should make banks use more of their own money. If they have more at stake, they would be more careful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks say stricter rules mean less money for businesses and people who need loans. But actually, banks gave more loans after the 2008 crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Big banks claim that charges for the operational crisis from Basel III Endgame's capital are too high. However these charges are not unfair. Big banks paid over $200 billion in fines from 2000 to 2023 for legal violations. Furthermore, these operational risks are the major source of losses in US banks. So it's important for the United State banks to increase their equity capital to protect the public better. Regulators should adopt Basel III Endgame and higher equity capital requirements proposed by the Minneapolis Fed promptly.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Rejecting big-bank arguments: Strengthening capital requirements","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"rejecting-big-bank-arguments-strengthening-capital-requirements","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7055","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":18},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Recently the Trump\u2019s campaign got donations from Winklevoss twins. The amount of the donations was about $1 million. However, some money returned back because of donation limits. They called Trump the \"pro-crypto\" candidate. They also gave $4.9 million to a pro-crypto group called \"Fairshake,\" which has raised over $177 million, making it the second largest fundraising group after the \"Make America Great Again\" group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fairshake spent over $2 million on ads against Bowman in the New York primary. Other big crypto companies like Ripple, Coinbase, and Andreessen Horowitz also donated millions to Fairshake. Their goal was to protect their interests from politicians like Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is against cryptocurrency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is very interesting to note that Fairshake along with its partners poured a huge amount into advertising for the primaries. The amount was approximately $37 million. This information is reported by AdImpact. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their support seems effective since many of the candidates who favor cryptocurrencies and receive their backing have emerged victorious in their House and Senate races.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's growing influence is a big worry. They often don't stand up for regular American crypto investors. Instead, regulators target big crypto companies whose founders have made huge profits from these small investors. This focus shows a big gap in how different parts of the industry are treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The crypto lobby's political ties also seem one-sided. Claiming that bitcoin executives could swing an election by delivering 5 million votes to Trump sounds hard to believe, even for Trump himself.<\/p>\n","post_title":"US election under threat due to cryptocurrency looby","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"us-election-under-threat-due-to-cryptocurrency-looby","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7069","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7065,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_date_gmt":"2024-07-01 14:02:27","post_content":"\n Recently the defeat of Congressman Jamal Bowman clearly highlights that pro-Israel lobby group grows day by day in the United State politics. This loss was due to a massive influx of funds from a Committee named as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in order to unseat the left-wing representative, the Committee and its allies spent nearly $25 million. From this situation one clearly gets to know how significant financial backing from powerful groups can shape political outcomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raises concerns about the power of money in the United State elections and also its impact on democratic representation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to discuss the different issues in American Politics. These complexities arise when sitting politicians face a variety of challenges from the person belonging to their own party. At this time same thing is happening with George Latimer, 70, who decided to run for office in December after local pro-Israel leaders encouraged him. They are not happy with Bowman\u2019s outspoken criticism of Israel's actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman is now at the center of a major rift within the Democratic Party. He is one who blamed Israel of genocide and questioned the United State support for Tel-Aviv. He expressed strong opposition to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and stated, \u201c We should be outraged when a Super PAC of dark money can spend $20 million to brainwash people into believing something that isn\u2019t true.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bowman firmly believes that the organization is trying to \u201cbuy\u201d the race in New York\u2019s 16th congressional district. His strong statement became the reason to increase the internal conflicts. Also his words point out the deep division over the United State foreign policy and influence of strong lobbying groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Many political leaders believed that Bowman\u2019s views took a very hard time for him. Due to his alignment with the progressive \u201cSquad\u201d in Congress, he faced tough challenges. The recent defeat of Bowman has sparked discussions. Different leaders discussed about the United State politics and impact of pro-Israel groupon it. Also many people discuss public discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is debate over the significant influence of these groups in shaping debates on Israel and influencing election results. Bowman's defeat has highlighted these dynamics, prompting questions about power balances and representation in US politics, especially regarding policies and viewpoints on the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This race clearly highlights the Israel attempts in United State politics in order to change the views of its citizens. Many investigations revealed the efforts of Israel's government to reshape the United State political discussion and possibly sway elections. The top of the name in this group is \u201cPR Commando Unit\u201d Named \u201cConcert\u201d or \u201cVoices of Israel\u201d, this initiative reportedly involves spending millions on covertly funding government propaganda in the US and other Western nations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman and the targeting of progressives like Cori Bush by pro-Israel groups suggest a push to shift the Democratic Party rightward on Israel. Bowman\u2019s defeat is the victory of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Democratic Majority for Israel. Also this effort clearly reflects the broad strategy to shape the party\u2019s position on Israel\u2019s policies. It also reveals internal divisions within the Democratic Party on foreign policy, especially concerning Israel\u2019s role in the Middle East. The outcomes showed the hot topic of discussions and also changes within the party related to global issues and how to solve it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The defeat of Bowman\u2019s marks a great setback for many political leaders. It\u2019s still unclear that this approach will prove impactful against other progressive Democrats or not? However this primary race suggests deep division within the Democratic Party. And concerning Israel's settler-colonization of Palestine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It also raised significant concerns about how foreign entities influence American democracy. These issues underscore ongoing debates and challenges within the party, revealing broader ideological and geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n","post_title":"The impact of Israel\u2019s lobby on black candidate\u2019s primary loss","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"the-impact-of-israels-lobby-on-black-candidates-primary-loss","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7065","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7061,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-28 17:58:28","post_content":"\n One of the key issues for the former president Donald Trump is immigration. He is attempting to return to the White House and decided to change his stance on immigration. According to the report this decision is part of his effort to win favor with potential political donors. Changing stance on immigration helps him to grab the attention of people and get more votes for his campaign. This action is seen as a strategic attempt to appeal to a broader range of supporters and secure the necessary funding. And definitely this funding increases his chance to win the upcoming presidential election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Previously Trump had strict views on immigration. But now his new plan to fast-track green cards for foreign students graduating from American universities is a big change in his political career. Now the question is what's the reason behind this change? This might be because business leaders of the United States, who he recently met with, need immigrant workers. They need workers for both low-wage and highly skilled jobs. This action looks like these CEOs influenced Trump's sudden change of heart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This changing stance on immigration highlights a pattern of aligning his immigration related views with wealthy donors and business interests. At the same time, his supporters claim that this changing stance is the sign of his ability to adapt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Republican strategist David Urban suggests that Trump is open to diverse perspectives, from big-time donors like Steve Schwarzman to everyday people, which supposedly helps him make informed decisions. However, Trump's flip-flopping on policies, like immigration and cryptocurrency, seems more about chasing campaign cash than thoughtful reflection. For example, Trump once called cryptocurrency a \"scam\" but recently rebranded himself as the \"crypto president\" to woo Silicon Valley donors. This shows his readiness to change positions based on who\u2019s funding his campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former president changing views on immigration is a sign that his policies might be influenced by people with lots of money. According to last year's New York Times, if Trump got the second term, he would deport tens of millions of immigrants. He also wanted to develop big new detention camps. The aim of these camps is to conduct the large immigration raids in major United State cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n President Joe Biden asked for help from both parties. This help is to support more funding for border security and to close the border if illegal crossings got too high. Trump boasted about convincing Republicans to oppose this. He disagreed with the bill so did not do this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This behavior is the clear sign that to get advantage politically and financially, he might change his stance. It also raised questions about his policies. Is these policies best for the country or only benefits him personally. Voters should think all about this before casting a vote. So, it is important to consider his position on issues like immigration before voting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has been seeking support from rich donors in his 2024 campaign. He promised them to introduce favorable policies that prove beneficial for these donors. These policies are related to financial support. A notable example is his pledge to oil and gas industry donors to roll back Biden's green energy policies in return for $1 billion in campaign contributions. Now the Democratic-led US Senate Budget Committee is investigating this move. Many critics opposed this action as \"quid pro quo\" pitches, suggesting a potential exchange of favorable policy decisions for donations. Furthermore, Trump has also dangled future tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy in exchange for financial support for his campaign. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, Trump has been offering future tax cuts for corporations and the rich in exchange for campaign donations. Trumps warned the donors that if Joe Biden wins again then Trump's tax cuts policies could expire. He implemented these tax cuts policies in 2017. <\/p>\n\n\n\n These actions have drawn criticism for what some perceive as a \"quid pro quo\" approach to policy making, where favorable policies are exchanged for financial support. The Democratic-controlled US Senate Budget Committee is now investigating Trump's promises to donors from the oil and gas industry.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Trump plan to change his view on immigration to bend the view of healthy donors","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"trump-plan-to-change-his-view-on-immigration-to-bend-the-view-of-healthy-donors","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7061","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7058,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-26 17:07:12","post_content":"\n Rejecting the political and electoral sway of the nation's most potent pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), prominent progressive organizations in the US are banding together. More than 20 advocacy organizations organized under the formal coalition name \"Reject AIPAC\" to oppose what they perceived as AIPAC's effort to stifle the \"growing dissent in Congress\" about Israel's Gaza conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recently established alliance referenced information indicating AIPAC is preparing a $100 million campaign via its political wings, AIPAC PAC and the United Democracy Project (UDP), to challenge a few progressive members of Congress who demanded a ceasefire in Gaza at the beginning of the conflict. The group stated in a statement that \"rejecting AIPAC is a crucial step in putting voters back at the center of our democracy.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n Although certain politicians and organizations have previously criticized AIPAC for their role in US political campaigns, the coalition represents a concerted effort directed towards the pro-Israel organization. Mainstream left-wing organizations that support Palestinian rights, such as the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, and the IfNotNow Movement, are included in the Reject AIPAC coalition. JVP Action's political director, Beth Miller, called the progressive groups' display of cooperation \"incredibly significant.\" The coalition, she continued, is \"a unified response\" by the American political left to \"the threat that AIPAC poses to Palestinian lives in Palestine as well as to the work that progressive groups are building here at home.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially nonpartisan, AIPAC defends US backing for Israel without conditions and retaliates against criticism of the Israeli government and its record on human rights. The group has continued to openly support Israel even as Israeli politics have shifted farther to the right. The current administration, which is leading the war in Gaza and is sometimes referred to as the most far-right cabinet in Israeli history, has continued to support Israel without reservation. Progressives in the US claim that AIPAC frequently pushes right-wing agendas at home by attacking left-wing politicians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the coalition's official statement, the anti-AIPAC coalition's plan is to use an advertising campaign to support progressives that AIPAC has targeted, petition Congress to oppose the organization's objectives, and urge Democrats to reject AIPAC. Therefore, Reject AIPAC is pushing policymakers to ratify a proclamation against AIPAC funding. The promise states, \"For decades, AIPAC has been a hawkish, warmongering, and bullying force in US politics.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n AIPAC has backed an unrestricted flow of US military supplies and finance to the Israeli government, which has been used to facilitate human rights atrocities against Palestinians. AIPAC works for a US foreign policy that is clearly at conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights. Known for being one of the most potent special interest organizations in Washington, AIPAC had officially refrained from participating in direct electioneering until 2022, when it established a political action committee and a corresponding \u201csuper PAC\u201d to obstruct the election of critics of Israel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Progressive candidates are more likely to win in Democratic primaries in liberal-leaning congressional districts, which is where AIPAC PAC and UDP concentrated their efforts. Their opponents call this strategy dishonest. They invested millions of dollars in elections around the nation, saturating the media with criticism of politicians who support Israel and frequently concentrating on unrelated domestic concerns. At the time of publication, AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the last election season, AIPAC mostly targeted open seats; however, it now seems to be preparing to target incumbents, with prominent progressives in the House of Representatives at the center of its attention. The extreme power of AIPAC's election expenditures, which is partially funded by right-wing billionaires who have backed conservatives like former President Donald Trump, has been criticized by progressives. In addition, the pro-Israel lobby group has supported several Republicans in Congress, many of whom declined to acknowledge President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. Justice Democrats' spokesman, Usamah Andrabi, stated that other coalition organizations have already<\/a> been fighting AIPAC and its \"right-wing influence in Congress.\" <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Our aim was to unite not just to become more structured, but also to organize the Democratic Party, its supporters, and elected officials to firmly oppose the disruptive impact of AIPAC, a Republican-backed super donor, on the Democratic primary process and our government's approach to Palestine and Israel,\" stated Andrabi. Progressive Democrats have been going all out in the polls for some time. The party establishment was rocked in 2018 when 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, backed by Justice Democrats, upset a prominent House Democrat who had served for over 20 years.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Greek opposition leader Snubs AIPAC amid Palestinian solidarity","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"greek-opposition-leader-snubs-aipac-amid-palestinian-solidarity","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_modified_gmt":"2025-02-02 08:34:26","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=7058","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":7055,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_date_gmt":"2024-06-24 15:54:53","post_content":"\n Big banks and their industry groups are intensively lobbying the Basel III Endgame. It is the federal proposal for stronger capital requirements. They claim it would impose punitive costs on banks. Also it harms all types of businesses, consumers and the economy of the United States. However all of these warnings are pointless with no any facts. The regulators should reject them. Recent reports show the proposal would increase equity capital requirements by $150 billion for eight U.S. megabanks designated as \"global systemically important banks\" (G-SIBs). This amount is just over one year of their average annual profits of $130 billion over the past three years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The total eight biggest worldwide banks had $14.94 trillion in assets at the end of 2023 <\/a>year. They funded 93% of this money in the form of loans, bonds and other debits. Their own money was only $1.06 trillion, that is called equity capital. Their combined Tier 1 leverage ratio, a measure of their financial health, was just 7.24%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the above proposal they would need to increase this ratio. From 1% to about 8.2% meets the requirement. In June 2018<\/a> this ratio was higher. It was about 8.47%. But in the past six years, bank regulators let these banks lower their ratios by paying out big dividends and buying back lots of their own stock. So, Basel III wouldn't even require these banks to go back to their 2018 level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
AIPAC meeting nixed by greek opposition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greek leader stands with Palestine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
AIPAC snubbed in athens<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Political rift over Israel stance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n