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

thesquanderer

(11,989 posts)
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 09:35 AM Feb 2016

Clinton's "Cut-it-Out" Speech analyzed

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1489014/-Clinton-s-Cut-it-Out-Speech

Somehow 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.


Link includes speech excerpts and further commentary.
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
Repost: Jarqui Feb 2016 #2
And even then, she thought the best thing to do was ask for voluntary changes. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #3
This is jumping into bed with them. eom Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #4
So she says passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #5
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. I would be astonished if either the voters or Wall Street actually believe Hillary would be
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 09:44 AM
Feb 2016

tough on Wall Street. What a farce.

Jarqui

(10,126 posts)
2. Repost:
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 09:59 AM
Feb 2016


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.
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 12:09 PM
Feb 2016

This is not "being tough" on them, this is *avoiding* being tough on them.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
5. So she says
Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:16 PM
Feb 2016
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.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton's "Cut-it-Out" Sp...