Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton's "Cut-it-Out" Speech analyzed
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1489014/-Clinton-s-Cut-it-Out-SpeechSomehow the words Cut it out were nowhere in her famed Wall Street admonition. Please play nicely would be closer to the tone and tenor of that were-all-at-fault campaign speech.
...
The actual speech was pretty easy on Wall Street. After repeatedly emphasizing that financiers only bore partial responsibility for problems in financial markets, she urged Wall Street players to reach a "voluntary solution" to the mess. If they couldn't, Clinton said, she would "consider" legislation. The tool she said she might eventually support -- lawsuit protection for mortgage servicers who modified loans -- wasn't particularly strong, since servicers were already required to offer troubled borrowers relief if doing so would prevent bigger losses from foreclosure.
...
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Miller and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had already introduced foreclosure relief legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduce the amount that borrowers owed on their mortgages -- just as they can for credit card balances and other debts.
Banks were fighting the proposal tooth and nail. If Clinton had wanted to be tough, she could have voiced support for her colleagues' legislation. She didn't.
...
The actual speech was pretty easy on Wall Street. After repeatedly emphasizing that financiers only bore partial responsibility for problems in financial markets, she urged Wall Street players to reach a "voluntary solution" to the mess. If they couldn't, Clinton said, she would "consider" legislation. The tool she said she might eventually support -- lawsuit protection for mortgage servicers who modified loans -- wasn't particularly strong, since servicers were already required to offer troubled borrowers relief if doing so would prevent bigger losses from foreclosure.
...
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Miller and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had already introduced foreclosure relief legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to reduce the amount that borrowers owed on their mortgages -- just as they can for credit card balances and other debts.
Banks were fighting the proposal tooth and nail. If Clinton had wanted to be tough, she could have voiced support for her colleagues' legislation. She didn't.
Link includes speech excerpts and further commentary.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 952 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton's "Cut-it-Out" Speech analyzed (Original Post)
thesquanderer
Feb 2016
OP
I would be astonished if either the voters or Wall Street actually believe Hillary would be
djean111
Feb 2016
#1
And even then, she thought the best thing to do was ask for voluntary changes.
thesquanderer
Feb 2016
#3
djean111
(14,255 posts)1. I would be astonished if either the voters or Wall Street actually believe Hillary would be
tough on Wall Street. What a farce.
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)2. Repost:
This started way before Dec 2007.
It's kind of like the Titanic hitting the iceberg. They saw the iceberg before before it struck. But it was too late. The boat momentum carrying that wad of bad mortgages couldn't stop or turn at that point. It was going to crash and nearly everybody knew it. There were too few lifeboats. This is the point where Hillary shows up to say "cut it out".
This is classic Hillary deception.
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)3. And even then, she thought the best thing to do was ask for voluntary changes.
This is not "being tough" on them, this is *avoiding* being tough on them.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)4. This is jumping into bed with them. eom
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)5. So she says
I see a lot of people who I recognize in this audience that are integral to what happens in our markets, how we create wealth, how we provide a dynamic economy that will hold out the promise of a better life for so many of our fellow citizens, but indeed for people far flung from here.
Funny how the wealth created is not so much helping most of our "fellow citizens"...it mostly helps the top wealthy (many of whom work on Wall Street), but notice how she mentions how it helps people far flung from here...like overseas.
Yes, our offshoring of jobs have helped many people in developing countries, but at the cost of American middle class. There has to be a better way to do this so we don't pull down our own country in the effort to help raise other developing countries.
I know it can be done. But that doesn't make some people very wealthy, like our current system does. And it's just not right that our current system has helped to make the Clinton's so wealthy and yet so many Americans are happy to put their futures in her hands if she takes the helm. I think that is a conflict of interest.