2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton opposes breaking up the megabanks, opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall
Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:40 PM - Edit history (7)
By Peter Schroeder - 07/13/15 01:47 PM EDT
Hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, an adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left.
Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks.
Liberals frequently argue that the Glass-Steagall Act, whose repeal was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, would have helped minimize the damage of the last financial crisis. But Blinder, who worked in the Clinton White House as well, said that is not in the cards for Hillary Clinton.
'You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,' he said, adding that he had spoken directly to Clinton about the issue.
...
She said Washington must 'go beyond' the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, calling banks 'still too complex and too risky.' She vowed to prosecute banks and bankers that break the law, as well as appoint tough regulators that would crack down on “too big to fail” financial institutions.
On matters like banker prosecutions, Clinton sounded similar to Warren, the left’s most prominent voice on financial matters. But when it comes to Glass-Steagall, it appears the two differ."
Full article: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill
For the record, both Sen. Bernie Sanders and Gov. Martin O'Malley support breaking up the "too big to fail" banks into smaller units. Sanders and O'Malley are both huge proponents of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's efforts to reinstate Glass-Steagall to separate commercial banking from risky investment banking.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
London Lover Man
(371 posts)while kissing up Wall Street.
Why Clinton supporters who are not part of the 1%'ers do not understand this. She outed herself as a Wall Street darling and never for the Main Street folks.
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)their best interests in both parties.
Sad, truly sad.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)They vote in THEIR best interests every time. It's OUR best interests that get sidestepped! 
SamKnause
(13,110 posts)Why do poor people vote for Republicans ???
Why do people vote for corporate tools ???
Many people in this country vote against their best
interest because they don't follow politics.
They think doing their part means voting.
They continue to vote for people who keep their wages low,
raise their taxes and fees while they lower taxes on the
elites and corporations.
There votes hurt us as a whole, but it hurts them and
they don't even know it.
Some people in this country are totally clueless.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I was talking of how our politicians vote on/for legislation - not how their constituents vote.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Corporation donations to candidates would mean nothing, because the voters would be smart enough to vote their own interest.. which means they'd be smart enough to get informed, and know the positions, and history of the candidates, and make the most informed decision... A feel good commercial wouldn't have the power to sway their vote.. a mud slinging commercial wouldn't have the power to change their mind on how they will vote.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)continue to vote for candidates who maintain the revolving door between presidential cabinet positions and Wall Street, with no break up of too big to fail banks and nothing but wrist slaps for gross malfeasance and misfeasance. Very cozy.
We need Krugman, Reich and Steiglitz overseeing our economy, not Geithner, Bernanke and that crowd. This is one important component of historic levels of wealth inequality. Business as usual is destroying our democracy and the planet, imo.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)again tho - I was speaking of how the elected officials vote. Of course, some of the voters vote in their best interests and some don't. But my point was that our legislators vote for more powerful interests (such as money and other considerations) than voting (on issues) for the good of their constituents.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)
azmom
(5,208 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)I firmly believe corporate money seeks to deceive, delude and devolve them.
They have to try to live, hell, to survive, in this world they are born into of servitude or starvation, of graft and grifters and death dealers. A land where everyone is willing to lend you a hand as long as yours is holding a dollar.
Like us, they will never learn the truth until they seek it.
Thanks to the best efforts of corporate investors, they most likely never will.
All anyone can do is try to survive in the most democracy they will allow us to have.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)spends his free time on social media. He is a smart man. I discuss politics with him, especially my passion for Bernie.
He submits some of my remarks to Facebook posters. Most of the responses are ill informed and not supported by any legitimate proof. He really doesn't believe in paid trolls. Hopefully this intelligent guy will at least listen to and research Bernie as I have suggested...
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Elmergantry
(884 posts)But what is in someones best interest is what believe it is, not what you think it is or should be.
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)That's the 'Mrcn way.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)That is lip service is coming from Bernie to main street,
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)What's the better option?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Seriously, I think he has the best platform when it comes to our banking nightmare.
There are a lot of people counting him out, but from all the research I (and others have done in the MO'M group, Martin O'malley really comes across as the man who can get shit fixed.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Most of the things O'Malley is for are things that were already part of Sanders platform. (The financial service tax for instance and reinstating Glass-Steagall)
Both of them are for the same thing but Bernie is more aggressive and polling significantly better.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)The best option is beefing up law the justice department to expose and prosecute the executives responsible for crimes and misdemeanors. That is what Clinton has promised.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic is no longer a meaningful or helpful option. Systemic change is necessary.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders has never been in a political fight, he has taken
it easy all these years just sitting in the Senate talking
Hillary's polictical skills are what is needed to get things done.
Not a whole lot of wishful thinking
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If she only works on things that can actually get done, then she'd be willing to work on that one.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)
You, know, thats how the real world works!
And your vulgarism is not helpful to your argument, it reflects
badly on you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Not the art of the certain, that is what an ideologue is: that is what Sanders
followers are!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That reinstating Glass-Steagall is impossible.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I don't have time to tutor
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You're dismissed.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You rely on others to school you
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)one that doesn't even want to.
I told you how I feel, how do you feel about breaking up the banks? reinstating Glass-Steagall?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)since he will actually do it first chance he gets and he will not stop fighting for it.
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)....the Hillary machine is regurgitating platitudes, and say that "they" have a plan, while Bernie and his supporters are proclaiming, "Our government is not treating us well." Nuf, said? nite.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)
I'd rather vote for the person who can get the best deal possible rather than the idealist who has no chance for success unless he has a solid majority in both houses of congress backing him up.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)The key to a Sanders victory is massive voter turnout in the general election among demographics who often don't bother voting but are inspired by a candidate who is not more of the same.
The vast majority who vote for Bernie will also vote Dem for the House & Senate.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)And Bernie Sanders creates a lot more down ticket heat than Hillary does. His coattails will be worth something in all 50 states.
I think what is extremely important is that we start looking at who is running for congress in our states and start working to assure the most progressive candidates are supported there too.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Whether he can achieve it is a different question, but you have to start with the intent ...
DCBob
(24,689 posts)is not looking to Greece.
He is looking to Iceland and how they successfully dealt with the banking crisis.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Get real.
rpannier
(24,336 posts)AllyCat
(16,216 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)
TM99
(8,352 posts)It just seems that your 'real' is not really as real as my real. 
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)by malfeasance in the form of derivative schemes and other malfeasance by American bankers. Why isn't that the basis of a remote comparison?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But clearly there are many other factors involved that differ.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)occasionally, instead of endless socialism for the 1%, is presumptively well applied in both countries.
PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You would rather vote for the candidate that wouldn't try?
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)That would have to come from Congress. You want to see banks re-regulated a bit? Elect a shit-load of social democrats/democratic socialists to office.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)And if he tries and fails, he is exposed as powerless - loses prestige and credibility.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)A President who tried to break them up would find them very willing to deal. They are totally vulnerable to the DOJ coming in and asking questions. As institutions they might be safe. But the people running them, and the people serving them, will sweat bullets if the DOJ came in asking hard questions and then offering immunity and working their way up.
An administration not looking to settle for fines*, but looking for criminal convictions, would have enormous leverage.
*Or donations!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The voters want a candidate not indebted to these banks and Wall Street. They will appreciate finally being able to vote for such a candidate. We Democrats outnumber the Republicans. With Sanders there is incredible enthusiasm amongst the voters, especially younger voters who often stay home.
The Republicans can only nominate someone who's in the pocket of banks and Wall Street. Even amongst Republican voters there's a lot of disgust at the Trillions of dollars in fraudulent ripoffs by the banks and Wall Street. Many will stay home if the focus is on how it's their party who is running a lackey for these types.
Lack of voter enthusiasm for a compromised candidate has been a huge problem for Republicans in the past. It's why the elder Bush lost.
The outrage is out there, amongst all the voters. Our problem is that too many of our candidates can't bite the hand that feeds them and so they can't effectively tap into that.
Know thy enemy. The enemy has, hypocritically, been making hay on how cozy our elected officials are with business interests. TPP is a good example of that.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/16196/rightwing_coalition_opposes_tpp_calling_it_obamatrade
Though our party is held in contempt by many Republican voters there's also a lot of loathing amongst many Republican voters for their corrupt candidates. Many of them stay home on election day because of that and many more will likely feel like doing that with an honest politician like Sanders as the Democratic candidate.
On the other hand, Clinton Derangement Syndrome is likely to overcome the contempt they have for their weak candidates. We'd likely still win with HRC, but our odds will be better with Sanders, a candidate without baggage, or the bullseye for hatred.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders is the last person that would be able to take on the
banks, he has never been in a political fight
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)So you have already called the 2016 election and the estimated voter turn out.
Well thank you Cassandra, I guess we can all go home now and stop posting.
Seriously, is there anything you won't say just to try to assure Hillary gets the nomination?
Have you watched or seen any of his events. He creates fire and heat and is generating a lot of volunteer activity and excitement. These things tend to translate to voter turn out.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)
She is the only chance American's to stop a war with Iran:
The GOP want war if they get elected.
Sanders is just another attack on the Dem's chances to keep
the Whitehouse. I have heard Sanders on Tom Hartman for years,
and he is was on Al franken' show.
Sander is just a nice little old man, no political skills or accomplishments, or
world stage experiences: He lives in small state with very
few political interests.
Sander is good talker, he doesn't demonstrated political competency, I
don't want a GOP person in the White house.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It isn't worth my time to go through every part of your statement that is wrong.
Hillary has been one of the advocates of taking military action in Iran.
Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination. Right now there is this whole nomination thing going on where we get to choose which Democratic candidate is going to run against the republicans for the white house. Supporting Sanders now does not reduce the chances of the Democrats taking the White House at all.
Sanders actually has an incredible record of being on the right side of almost every issue in modern politics. He was against the war in Iraq, he was against DOMA, and he is for tougher regulations on Wallstreet. He actually has been against most military actions with the exception of Kosovo.
Calling him a "little old man..." and all that is very dismissive and it leads me to believe that you do not have any idea what you are talking about.
Where are you from anyhow?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Monsanto has her on retainer.
When she talks about We the People she does so without passion. What issue is Hilary passionate about? I've yet to see one. I HAVE seen her lick her finger and test the wind with it.
Any presidential candidate who wouldn't re-instate Glass-Stegall and didn't condemn TPP immediately and forcefully doesn't deserve the office.
Where's your passion, Hilary?
PBass
(1,537 posts)What exactly would you like her to do? Slam her shoe down on the table? Weep openly? Shout?
As far as issues, Hillary has plenty of things she has championed. An obvious example would be women's rights on a global scale ("women's rights are human rights" . I guess that doesn't count, for some people.
The people who refuse to give Hillary Clinton any credit at all, I feel very comfortable dismissing all of your opinions immediately. In my opinion, you lack credibility. It's intellectually dishonest to say that Hillary Clinton brings nothing positive to the table. And the vast majority of Democrats do not share your deep cynicism. And I'm glad your views are not mainstream.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Bernie Sanders has been fighting Big Business for 50 years. When did Hillary start?
Hillary even said she was "Elizabeth Warren before Elizabeth Warren."
Now THAT'S authenticity.
meh
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)of obtaining the office.
Like Bill, she has no core principles whatsoever, and anything that is said before the election will be forgotten the second after the ballots are done being counted. We've seen this bad movie before and it gave us NAFTA, banking deregulation and the Telecom Act.
No more, thank you.
840high
(17,196 posts)SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)It is apparent that her supporters like things
just the way they are.
If not, why do they support her ?????????
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Seems clear-cut to me.
erronis
(15,328 posts)And now we have the self-described repubs as well as some 3rd-way dems talking about rolling back rights and going back to a feudal system.
Labels don't mean much anymore - if they ever did. The best thing to look at is a person's record based against your beliefs. Much more complicated but much more accurate.
I can't think of any candidate except one who has been consistently against the aggrandizement of wealth in the hands of the elites. I won't name names otherwise someone will complain about favoring the non-annointed.
The River
(2,615 posts)BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Sounds like a. we're all playing a game of hopscotch or b. a repeat of Ann Romney.
frylock
(34,825 posts)than they are of the plays being called in the huddle.
And I want Bernie quarterbacking OUR team.
Hut, hut, hike!
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)Rank and file democrats not so much.
azmom
(5,208 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)not only no idea of how this country lives nor has she interest. Her 'populist' stances are political tools. Nothing more, nothing less.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Even her voice sounds fake. Only a fool would trust her.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)This is the irrational response we've been hearing for years from the Hillary haters. Based on an emotional reaction to a strong, confident, accomplished, intelligent and morally courageous woman.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)How about you (and all the other people who support her) stop using the term "Hillary haters" to label everyone who disagrees with her?
Nitram
(22,861 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But I believe that is only a few specific people going way overboard. By the way if I called Clinton supporters what you just called Sanders supporters I would be called a freeper. Pretty nice huh?
Nitram
(22,861 posts)"She's A Snake. Even her voice sounds fake. Only a fool would trust her."
Please don't take my reply personally. I don't believe most Sanders supporters are like that.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)But do worry, I shall turn the other cheek. 
Nitram
(22,861 posts)It was clear the poster to who I was replying is indeed a true blue Hillary hater. I'm not sure I understand your point.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And I hate Cheney. The Clintons are part of their "group". My disgust isn't personal but it is real and palpable.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Beyond all the facts that support that she is disingenuous do you truly not listen to your intuition? If Jeb Bush is nominated and Wall St and war mongering military contractors want Clinton vs Bush because it's a win win then we will have given up our strongest advantage...decrying NEPOTISM!! Hillary essentially neutralized that advantage and Bush couldn't be happier especially since the entire family is such close friends with the Clintons. How can anyone be so blind to ignore this point.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I never once indicated who I support. But Bernie is obviously the only decent candidate or person rather. Hillary has been caught lying and she colluded with the Bushes...is that not snake like?
Nitram
(22,861 posts)Equals Love of Bernie. That's a fatal flaw.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The facts about Hillary have been talked about here long before Bernie ever entered the picture. It's all about Bush.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)My mother is strong, accomplished, rational and educated. She is also a democrat and she also doesn't trust Hillary. Guy reaction is only one of a plethora of reasons... All pointing in the same direction. She is a Goldman Sachs loving, Wall St debutante, NSA promoting, military subservient who has been caught lying so often she looks ridiculous. Support the right woman... Not just any woman. That's a disservice to all women. And worst of all she is stated to be an honorary Bush family member by both that disgusting family and herself. Her closeness to them alone should deter anyone.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Nitram
(22,861 posts)I'm sure you can do better than that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary lives in New York, the fats cats on Wall St, don't love her:
its the people who work on Wall St, that are sending her help.
They average income, between 30,000. and 50,000 they are middle class.
If things have chance to change it will be through Hillary's Team and the Dem's
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)I see her loyalty to Wall Street and fossil fuels industry. I've seen little evidence of her loyalty to the people.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Entry-level investment banking associates do pretty well for themselves, often receiving salaries of $75,000 or more in their first year.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-careers/09/big-career-on-wall-street.asp
And these types aren't the ones filling the HRC campaign war chest, as far as I know.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)We need the tougher laws we once had. Thats the point, we don't need word games.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"Yeah yeah. You vow, we move!"
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)London Lover Man
(371 posts)Gave me a chuckle too.... especially after the "move".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it was zero. Goldman-Sachs isn't worried about HRC prosecuting them.
When Sen Sanders gets the presidency he will have an extremely hard time doing anything about the banksters. But at least, I believe he will try. Holder spent his time harassing (actually throwing people in prison) medical marijuana users in states where it was legal.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)as a US Senator from NY. In less than three years she voted for the Iraq invasion.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)What does that even mean? What are the specifics?
Or is that like Obama saying we must "move forward" rather than prosecuting bankster criminals?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
appalachiablue
(41,170 posts)London Lover Man
(371 posts)My guess: no
PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)
ion_theory
(235 posts)be stuck with someone who is Obama 2.0 in regards to economic policy. Don't vote for her just because 'she has the best chance to win' or 'it's her turn.'
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Republicans. She is a divisive figure and they will not vote for her.
Bernie is ALREADY drawing Republican votes.
840high
(17,196 posts)vote for her.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)There was a perfectly good law in place to help stop those kinds of abuses. The fact that she mouths generalities but rules out specific policy speaks volumes. And doesn't surprise me one bit.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Zonker is trying to teach Mike California dialect for their impending road trip. Mike's first effort was met with "Not bad, but could you be a little less specific?"
frylock
(34,825 posts)I suppose Team Clinton is still in process of crafting these policies, despite her essentially running for the office the last 10 years.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)she will have to rely on her right wing voters (but Webb is going to take them).
Roy Rolling
(6,932 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,291 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)ibewlu606
(160 posts)Remember how we used to mock Teabaggers for being so willfully ignorant? I can't over how people I USED to admire and respect have gone all in for HRC.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) Maybe I should vote for Bernie just because he is a man. Response to L0oniX (Reply #30)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Can we say "Maggie Thatcher".
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)One only has to look at the work the banks and republicans put into breaking it
madokie
(51,076 posts)err bribes will make sure of that.
What else can we believe that she isn't on the take when you read what her war chest comprises of and where it mostly came from
Hillary Clinton is not on 99% of us here at DU's side you can about bet on that.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)But then a corporate Dem is a little better than a corporate Rep.
Bernie gets my money and my vote in the primary. The Democratic candidate (hopefully Bernie) gets the same in the general.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)She then would at least be honest with the voters.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)No, FFS. Hillary Clinton would not even remotely win any Republican primary anywhere.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Centrist Democrat and Centrist Republican?
Also:
How would you label a Democrat that gets most of their campaign funding from Wall St.and corporate groups?
Then how would you label a Republican that gets most of their campaign funding from Wall St and corporate groups?
1. An example of a centrist Democrat would be Jon Tester; an example of a centrist Republican would be Chris Christie
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jon_Tester.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chris_Christie.htm
If you can't see a difference then you don't actually care about most important issues
2. A Democrat
3. A Republican
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)She might call herself a Democrat but she sure as hell is not a liberal
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)won't repeal glass-steagall...hmmmmm.....
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Glass-Steagell back they will only have their own money to play with. Poor dears would go broke. Not to mention that their gambling would no longer be covered by FDIC as Glass-Steagell limits the FDIC to deposit banks not investment banks. No more bailouts.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But I guess there's no point trying to get people to actually understand what they advocate for anymore...
jwirr
(39,215 posts)result of regulating the banks. Then we get rid of the regulations and here we are back in the Hoover era. Sure it looks like our economy is coming back but we did nothing to stop another crash from happening.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Wall St pays her well.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Slapping a "D" after your name while being a full and bloodless neo conservative is so Nineties.
Bernie Sanders all the way.
senz
(11,945 posts)Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)You see not many can make $300,000 an hour being such a gifted speaker.
She'll be as tough as Eric Holder.
Glorfindel
(9,733 posts)Maybe she will change her mind. I truly hope so. 
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)This kind of stuff is why she isn't sailing away with the nomination.
polichick
(37,152 posts)emsimon33
(3,128 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)alluding to increasing regulatory oversight will be issued by team HRC.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)it nearly bites you on your nose.
Sad case. Sad case. Money trumps common sense when it comes to Hillary on this issue.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)How about we take the risk to the tax payer out of the equation. That is only reasonable and not at all extreme.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)and those that do, don't care.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
awake
(3,226 posts)I care strongly about Glass-Steagall it worked for over 70 years until Bill let it die I had thought that Hillary was Different. I was even willing to support her run but this defiantly makes me reconsider whether I could vote for her now.
CTBlueboy
(154 posts)The Duchess of Goldman would never support reigning in her big donors party
but you never know maybe in a couple days or weeks the weather vane will point in the right direction
elleng
(131,077 posts)"too big to fail" banks!
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and having it still in affect wouldn't have changed the great recession.
awake
(3,226 posts)Because they would have had to risk their own money not depositors money in their bogus investment scams.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)"In 1999, Democrats led by President Bill Clinton and Republicans led by Sen. Phil Gramm joined forces to repeal Glass-Steagall at the behest of the big banks. What happened over the next eight years was an almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and once again they sold them to their customers in the form of securities. The bubble peaked in 2007 and collapsed in 2008. The hard-earned knowledge of 1933 had been lost in the arrogance of 1999.......
....It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Read up on the Volcker Rule:
http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/DF_28_VolckerRule/index.htm
awake
(3,226 posts)My point is while the Bushes would still have F*cked things up if GL was still inlace the damage would not have been as bad.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)banks could do with deposits.
awake
(3,226 posts)but each to their own.
Good luck and Good Night
Rilgin
(787 posts)The prohibitions of glass steagall relate to the fact that chartered bank accounts are insured by the FDIC and other agencies. This is the problem with the elimination of the glass steagal lwall. Other activities can threaten depository capital held by the bank side.
When they eliminated Glass Steagall, it allowed banks to have two divisions directly and by affiliation and to underwrite security offerings. Inherently, these activities depended on the assets of the bank and the depositary capital it held. If the investment division went down, the bank might be broke and not able to pay deposits. If no connection, you can let investment banks go bankrupt as it does not threaten the banking system as a whole.
I also saw in another post you seem to claim that banks are only able to make collateralized loans and you seem to refer to mortgages. The bank charter system is highly diversified. The big national banks traditionally did not do home mortgages but were commercial lenders. This was when banks were actually highly regulated. Glass Steagall did not exist in a vacuum. Mortgages were made by Savings Banks and credit unions. This distinction has mostly disappeared. However, banks can lend and leverage their capital directly and indirectly in ways other than collateralized loans.
I write this as a banking lawyer in the 80's who saw the changes in regulation first hand. Before the deregulation banking regulation was pretty tight and Glass Steagall was a big part of it. I do not currently work as a banking lawyer and am not as aware of the current strictures so have no comment on your posts over the Volcher Rule or its effectiveness. I do know the old regulation regime worked to keep our banking system rock solid from first being enacted all the way through to the 80s
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)
gaps. As you say, you are not sure how that works now. I'm not a banking lawyer, and don't have to be precise. But Clinton is right, reinstating GS is not necessary to regulate banks tightly because current laws, and strict auditing, cover most issues. I'm sure some tweaks are necessary, but GS is history. New laws cover the bases.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:18 AM - Edit history (2)
The S&L crisis occurred after the banking regulations were relaxed and
S&Ls were allowed to do more than take deposits and lend money. There is always a little more complexity but mostly in the reasons for the deregulation. The boring banking system was under threat from non-bank banks who found a loophole to avoid banking regulation and could offer checking accounts with interest which at the time was not allowed. These accounts were not guaranteed by the FDIC but were causing depository flight and the banks were scrambling to compete. The regulators could have just closed the loophole as they had done all previous loopholes and closed the non-bank banks but they didnt, instead they started experimenting with deregulation concepts.
As I said, I am not a current expert. However, the old regulations were air tight and based on what I believe is a fundamentally sound principal. The banking system was very boring and safe. Risk took place outside of that system and fell only on the investors and owners not the public. This was through more than glass steagall but a highly integrated system of regulation and an attention to regulation that basically could be summed up as "If you are a bank, be a bank. Take in money and make loans. If you want to do anything else, you cannot be a bank". As one of my projects as a young attorney, I read ever single letter written to banking regulators requesting opinions if banks could expand their activities. Up until the deregulation, the answer was always no. After carter and Reagan, the activities were expanded and ultimately led to the first banking crisis...the S&L Crisis.
Whether the current system could work is possible. However, we can say categorically that the old regulations worked to avert banking failures. The incidence of failure was almost non-existent for 50 years. Meanwhile our country was also more stable, fewer bubbles, less wealth disparity and a stronger middle class. In addition, the financial sector as a proportion of GDP was considerably less under the older regime and the proportion of productive industries higher. I think this is related. I personally believe we do not need banks to perform risk taking and think we have a safer economic system under a regime that isolates the basic financial system from both risks and temptation.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are properly collateralized . But, you can't get people all fired up telling the truth.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)as long as Hillary wins, right?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't know whether they don't understand the laws in place, or whether they figure the people they are trying to attract as supporters don't understand it, or won't look it up themselves.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Seems like a good attempt to protect the public from the things that brought around the Great Depression and our current multi trillion dollar derivative whole that the banks created fucking around with account holders deposits. I'll take the attempt than not trying at all.
Yes I read several definitions, even analysis from Investment firms (whom by the way had a strong bias).
So yea, Go Bernie!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, and a Harvard Law School professor specializing in bankruptcy law, do not understand the financial laws that are in place? And we should take your word over theirs?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...a sly way of calling them dissemblers, or at the very least demagogues.
You have a right to your opinion of course. Mine differs when it comes to both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: I do not think that either one of them is misleading voters. I think that both of them are voicing strong convictions based on their very educated understanding of our present day economic system. And I do seek out information independently as well -- what they say is consistent with other information.
Some people see it as strictly a zero-sum game, with no moral element. But it is a human construct, and it certainly does have a moral element -- and when that human construct works counter to the welfare of the vast majority of the population, then the construct must be changed.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the TPP was so secret that we wouldn't see it for years AFTER it was passed, which was a blatant lie.
They should have known that; or were, again, playing to their uniformed constituents. Then, when that was shown to be a lie that they couldn't get around, they moved on to other bull that was equally misleading and designed to confuse the public for their own gain.
Fact is, banks have not been free to use deposits for anything but highly collateralized loans for decades. Up until the housing market caved, from speculation, loans provided to people with a high likelihood of not being credit worthy if the houses value didn't continue to increase (which was supported by a lot of people who wanted everyone to have a shot at owning a home), etc. Now, those type loans are closely reviewed. Point is, with the Volcker Rule, Dodd-Frank, and closer scrutiny of bank reserves and loans, it's a lot less likely we'll run into that problem again. Other problems, probably.
By the way, I'm a big supporter of Bernie Sanders idea of pivoting toward Scandinavian countries. I just don't think he can get us there, much less be elected. Warren -- maybe she'll get a serious role in Clinton's admin.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...in some cases for 4 years (might be 5) after the law takes effect, assuming that it does. As far as I know, we will see the law itself. I would have to see their specific quotes on the topic to know if they misspoke about what it is we won't see for years.
About those "highly collateralized loans"... In the old days, when a commercial bank made a mortgage loan, the house was the collateral for the loan AND the bank kept the loan. But in the run-up to the 2007/2008 crisis, mortgages were being sliced and diced into "financial products" and sold to whoever could be duped, er, persuaded into buying them. Yes this started before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, but even so, it is clearly against the fundamental reason for Glass-Steagall in the first place: namely, preventing FDIC-insured commercial banks from engaging in risky securities trading.
So now having sold off their mortgage papers, the banks had made their money and didn't have to worry about whether those loans were any good. Their incentives thus became to make as many loans as possible and sell them off as quickly as possible. They had little incentive to ensure that the loans were good -- as long as they could package them as AAA financial products (with the help of cooperative ratings agencies like AIG) and make their quick money.
Well we saw the result of that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The mortgages were good, until the housing market collapsed from speculation and issuing mortgages to folks who couldn't pay once housing values tanked, and the recession started.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)which is why she is willing to say such disturbingly dishonest things about the law here.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...what, exactly, "disturbingly dishonest things about the law" has Warren said?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)from "gambling with your money", which is not even remotely what Glass Steagall did (it kept them from gambling with their own money). Her website is much more honest in saying that it "separated" investment and retail banking (which is a completely different question); it's some of her speeches I'm thinking of.
She also has said that the FDIC uses "taxpayer money", which is blatantly false (and very surprising, since she knows perfectly well how the FDIC is funded):
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/12/15/370817279/-warning-shot-sen-elizabeth-warren-on-fighting-the-banks-and-her-political-futur
The FDIC is funded entirely from fees from insured banks.
Let me explain it in simpler concepts using right and left hands Assume I am worth $150. Then, you give me $50 bill which I am to return to you. It is a general liability of mine.
I promise not to gamble "your money" so I will not go to Vegas with your bill and put it on a black jack table in Vegas. Therefore I am not gambling your money. This is what I am doing with my right hand. I am putting your money/bill in a drawer and promising to give it back to you when you ask.
Meanwhile, I call my bookie and make a leveraged bet with him. Generally it could only cost my $150 but under certain circumstances, I could lose $200 or more because my activity was leveraged.
This is what my left hand is doing. Now the worst happens (my bet is lending leveraged money to foreign investors or underwriting and offering). When the bookie or creditor comes to collect, he does not distinguish your bill and my money. Nor does the law distinguish between my money and your bill. He takes the money I owe him. I still owe you but I have no money to pay you. This activity although not directly tied (I didn't gamble your specific bill) put your deposit with me at risk.
This was the purpose of Glass Steagall when it says it seperated the banking and investment banking divisions. It separated risky activities from the banks which were the holders of insured depository capital. If an investment bank were to fail, it could not take down the whole system.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)
Rilgin
(787 posts)The above poster who tried to muddy the waters on the meaning of Glass Steagall was partially right in that Glass Steagall alone might not have directly prevented the specific problems that led to the recent bank crises. Banks could conceptually make bad bets and investments and go under. Glass Steagall was not about lending standards nor did it address the fraud in loan origination. The prohibitions against using depository capital would not directly all by themselves prevent a bank from going bust. However, it might have prevented the securitization of loans and the underwriting of those securities by the banks which played a part in the crisis
Banks could still invest their own capital. However, it was not their business. Their business was the business of retail and commercial banking. As an industry, they did not accumulate capital for investment within the bank. If the bank made a profit from its lending activities it would dividend it out to the owners who would then invest in their individual names. Banks would only hold earnings for capital needs such as building a new branch. They just would not take a derivative position or other leveraged bets in the banks name because that was the implication of Glass Steagall and the whole banking regime. An insured depository bank was just a bank and could only be a bank.
Only after deregulation did the banks become so big and so speculative.
Before deregulation, Glass Steagall was not the only law in bank regulation. Banks were highly regulated by the OCC, the FDIC, and the Fed. As a whole, this kept the banking sector stable for over 50 years.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But that is not how banks work. Deposits are liabilities; the money you deposit disappears from the money supply and becomes debt on the bank's balance sheet.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hence the whole "don't let banks gamble with your money" idiocy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)played.
Rilgin
(787 posts)The statement "don't let the banks gamble with your money" is simplistic but on the whole more accurate than your beliefs that Glass Steagall was not about protecting depository capital and the federal treasury by restricting the activities of banks. It is simplistic but Glass Steagall was mostly about not letting banks gamble with depository capital.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Banks are depositories and have capital, so there is in that sense (though even Google will only find "depository's capital", which is the point), but deposits are liabilities, not capital. Banks don't "keep" the money you deposit; it just disappears from the money supply. They particularly don't "invest" or "loan out" your deposits; they create money when they originate a loan, and they invest capital.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Deposits become bank assets. Depositors are unsecurrd creditors of banks. I am sure that everyone reading this thread could determine that we were discussing capital of the bank obtained through deposits rather than profit.
If the bank loses money so that their assets including assets coming from deposits are less than their liabilities including to depoaitors, this is a problem and ia what Glass Steagall and the other banking laws and regulations were meant to prevent or leasen the chance of occurring.
HOWEVER YOU KNEW THAT WAS WHAT I MEANT WHEN I USED THE TERM.
Btw, it has been over 20 years since i was a banking lawyer but i think that was a term we used then. Regardless, back then I worked on projects for Chase related to early stagea of deregulation and later worked at a firm that repreaented the FDIC. So unlike you i was at one time an expert on banking regulation and Glass Steagall. The primary princpal of banking regulation up till derugulation was keeping risk out of banks who took deposits or to put it in real plain english to prevent banks from gambling with your or the public money.
Now you can continue to avoid and dodge . I am sure i made a typo you could pick on. Or you can actually try to understand the basis of bank regulation after the great depression
Recursion
(56,582 posts)When you deposit $100 in your checking account the bank's assets do not increase by $100, its liabilities increase by $100. The $100 doesn't improve the bank's financial situation at all. This is crucial to understanding how banking works.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I see. According to you, when an individual makes a deposit at a bank, the bank only gets a liability and does not get anything on the asset side of its balance sheet. So, according to you, the big banks must be totally bankrupt because of the huge liability they face to depositors.
Of course, deposits show up on the asset side of the banks balance sheet because the deposited & funds are no longer the assets of the depositor. They are assets of the bank. The depositor is now a creditor of the bank. The funds do not just disappear.
But again, I do not really care nor is this thread about precise accounting terms. I do not care where the bank's accountants place the deposits on the banks balance sheet nor what they call those deposits. That is irrelevant to this thread which is about Glass Steagall and banking regulation.
Just for you, I left a typo in the middle of this post so you can attack the words again without dealing with meanings.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Glass-Steagall's repeal was certainly a factor. How? Because the big banks that had investment arms can enter the markets using leverage ratios that outstripped what they were historically; this money fed the shaddow banking system, which hedged packaged mortgages, which liquidated the real estate market and help cause the bubble. ( as well as trade def. money escaping the Russian Bond default, Fed policies following the dot com bubble and 9/11, ect.)
It is an overstatement to say it "caused"; but, Glass-Steagall or similar regulation is needed before over-leveraging Fed money factors in another meltdown.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are auditing banks to ensure reserves are sufficient?
Truthfully, I'm fine with reinstating GS, even if it makes little difference. The Investment side will be spun off, investors will likely make money from that, and we will be in pretty much the same situation. It won't change anything for most of us, other than some might say, "by god we stuck it to those banksters."
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but you do not provide any argument, nor cite any economist, to support that position.
Your assertion by itself is worth precisely: nothing, nada, zip, zilch.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But here’s the key: Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn’t have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. But parts of the bet were made with synthetic credit derivatives — something that George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life” would never have touched.
When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
She went on to talk about how it was a bad "symbol" or something like that (it "tells regulators to step back"
; in terms of the actual rule it didn't have an impact.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Which Warren oversaw.
It's all a big scam for corporate / banker welfare.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)until it could stabilize, and that wouldn't have been possible under Glass-Steagall
It's all a big scam for corporate / banker welfare.
What isn't? On the plus side, it's corporate welfare that made the US government several billion dollars. ("Shakedown" is probably a better term for TARP than "bailout".)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Of course I realize that the money hat is the easiest approach.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It may have been wrong to grab, but once you have it's very dangerous to let go.
Nationalization is a decent idea in principle, but investment banks hold something like $80 trillion in derivatives positions. That money doesn't actually exist, but if everyone just suddenly admitted it didn't exist there would be some very big problems.
frylock
(34,825 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that part, but I bet they won't.
After reading about this new Bail-In policy and
the steady and continued gambling of the banks,
this is a HUGE issue for everyone.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)One is the slow road, the others are the fast road to destruction. The only decent candidate is Bernie, but twice the election was stolen, some days I hope, but then I realize, we are truly fighting against an entire corrupt system.
global1
(25,266 posts)She said in her big economic speech that Washington must 'go beyond' the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, calling banks 'still too complex and too risky.' She vowed to prosecute banks and bankers that break the law, as well as appoint tough regulators that would crack down on “too big to fail” financial institutions.
And then hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, her financial adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left and no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks.
Did she misspeak then? Did she not mean what she said? Did she say it only so the sound bite can be used in a campaign commercial or in the MSM news shows? Did she say it because that's what her campaign learned from a focus group that the voters want to hear this? Did she say it so that she sounds a little like Bernie Sanders when it comes to these economic issues - she knows that this is what is working for Bernie - so she is employing similar language so that she can diffuse some of Bernie's momentum on these issues? Did she say it because that is what some speech writer put in her speech for her to read? Did she say this just to win and really not mean it?
You see this is what troubles me about Hillary. I just can't trust her. Especially after I saw the listing of her campaign contributors versus Bernie Sanders campaign contributors. That list alone tells me to where her allegiances lie. I wish someone would repost that listing so more can see.
When I listen to Hillary - I don't hear someone that comes through as genuine. I'm sorry - but when I compare her words and speeches to Bernie's - hers just don't seem sincere. She reads through her speeches almost like a person that has just learned to read out loud.
I know I'm going to get piled on by her supporters - but that is my opinion - just like it is there opinion that she is the greatest.
I just don't share in their enthusiasm of her.
I know she was a former first lady and spent 8 years aside of her President husband and racked up a lot of experience. I know she was a Senator. I know she was a Secretary of State and knows probably every world leader. I know that if elected she would be the first woman President. I know that a lot of her supporters believe this is her turn.
I'm sorry though - I just can't get past the lack of genuineness and sincerity when I hear her speak or when I read things like the original poster pointed out - that she said one thing and later the same day her campaign seems to be backing down from what she said.
I've been fooled too many times before by candidates that say one thing in the campaign and when elected do something completely 180 to what they said.
And what was that old saying by Dubya - fool me once.......
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Thats been my opinion of her since she ran in 2008.
Only those entities that give huge sums to her campaign will really know what she will do once in office.
The rest of us will be left wondering.
BlueEye
(449 posts)Most of it was the pro-middle class rhetoric we've heard from Obama, with an "empowering women" angle on some of it. Any of us here can support such policies (it's pretty non-controversial among Democrats), although actually getting Congress to implement them is a whole 'nother ballgame.
The last fifteen minutes was where she really delved into Wall Street, and where the huge divergence from Bernie's positions was evident. She articulated a surprisingly nuanced vision for corporate/capital tax policy and financial regulation. For me personally, I could actually getting a feel for what those policies are, beyond vague MSM-friendly soundbites.
On the tax front, she never said she wants to raise rates on corporate America. Instead, she wants to reform the code so that companies will actually repatriate their earnings and pay taxes on them. She wants to restructure capital gains rates to encourage *real* long-term investing, rather than the pump and dump strategies that qualify today. Implicitly, she's saying she intends to retain some form of favorable capital gains rate. Also, she alluded to some sort of tax policy mechanism that would discourage hedge funds from raiding corporate retained earnings and promote long term capital expenditure. In plain English, she's saying corporations should spend their money, rather than let ultra-wealthy investors steal it. Implicit in that is that she doesn't intend to tax all the accumulated corporate earnings and redistribute it, as Bernie might advocate.
She did indeed say "Too big too fail is too big a problem!" Hillary and her advisers clearly believe that the problem of massive banks and Systematically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs) can be managed WITHOUT breaking them up. That much is clear. She probably intends to redouble efforts to enforce and defend Dodd-Frank, and to empower the Treasury, FSOC, Fed, FDIC SEC, PCAOB, ETC. to do what they were tasked to do: manage risk. Manage risk. Say it over and over again, because managing risk is clearly how a President Hillary Clinton would approach bank regulation.
Beyond that, she spoke of prosecuting fraud more effectively... I'll believe that when I see it. Her idea of creating a special fund to spend financial penalties and fines on infrastructure was novel.
In short, I don't see Hillary as two-faced. If you read between the lines, you'll see what we have all known: Hillary Clinton is a moderate Democrat, with centrist views on financial regulation. Bernie would go after Wall Street with a meat cleaver. Hillary would use a scalpel. Her positions haven't changed all that much, to be honest. In my opinion, she's been quite consistent on this stuff throughout her career.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)And wall street has been going after our bank accounts with chainsaws. Hillary wants to get into a fencing match with a scapel, while wall street has chainsaws that make horror flicks look like butterknives.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts)I thought competition was what made capitalism a good thing?
moondust
(20,002 posts)Monopoly good!!!
War is peace!!!
senz
(11,945 posts)My memory goes back a few decades, and when I remember all the mom and pop drugstores, stationary stores, hardware stores, clothing shops, grocery stores, five and dime stores that no longer exist, I see the end of America. The landscape is no longer human sized. And capitalism is eating itself alive.
I wonder if there is a chart like this for the media monopoly?
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)Depressing, too. About 15 years ago, I did a project for grad school on the subject. It looks like things haven't changed too much since then ; without getting out my notes, I'm pretty sure there were six companies at that time, several of the same ones, with the exception of CBS. I think that was owned by another company. One of the things I learned is that the CEOs of megacorps sit on the Board of Directors of other companies. Very incestuous. Haven't kept up with all the mergers, but am relieved that it hasn't shrunk to fewer than six. Prior to Reagan and Clinton, there were hundreds of separately owned independent media. The best book on the subject was Ben Bagdikian's Media Monopoly. I wish Bill Clinton had stood firm and refused to sign the 1996 Telecom Act, which opened the doors to massive buyouts, monopolies. Unthinkable.
That's really a fine chart, well done.
Jackilope
(819 posts)I live in a red state, but I can donate to Bernie and can drive across the borders to MN and Iowa to volunteer. I am dang tired of Third Way Corporate Dems. and it is glaringly obvious where HRC will tilt. Keystone Pipeline? Yep, run it through the Ogallala Aquifir. TPP? Green lights ahead. She is Lucy holding the football and trying to ensure us she won't yank it away, but deep down we know how it all will play out.
If she gets the nomination, my vote in this red state won't count, but I see no reason to volunteer or donate money. Why should I when she has so much corporate sponsorship? I just cannot generate any enthusiasm for her and will walk away from the football.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Sorry, I just saw a cute picture of some people in Star Wars garb at Comic-con holding up Bernie Sanders signs.
But yes, I agree. I don't think Hillary is the right choice. I think Bernie Sanders is the best candidate I have seen in decades to address the biggest economic and environmental issues that we face.
Jackilope
(819 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Watched him point blank ask a person about it...
It was hilarious to see the woman squirm, stutter, shrug her shoulders (that was the best!)...all to give a NON-response!
Well, that summed up HRC's stance right there.
Go Bernie.
awake
(3,226 posts)Ed showed clips from her talk today and then exposed what her campaign adviser said as reported here pointing out the flip.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)
aspirant
(3,533 posts)without being approved by the state's gambling commission by just calling it investments?
If casinos changed their name to include investment banking, why couldn't they operate everywhere in every state?
What's the difference between a bet on a football game and a derivative or a future's option?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)So let's now call a football bet a security buy or a game time derivative
Agony
(2,605 posts)with practical impunity? is another question to ask
aspirant
(3,533 posts)the rating agencies.
They bet both sides
They entice the players into mortgage fraud to rig the game
The more we can link these crooks to actual gambling and its addictions, the faster we can get change
ananda
(28,875 posts)... and it aint us.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)K&R 
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)You dance with them what brung ya, as the late great Molly Ivins was wont to say.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Citigroup and Morgan/Stanley must have given more money to her.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Impedimentus
(898 posts)If the question is good for the gander is it not good for the goose?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Arm twist Democrats to go along with Republican policy like Obama.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Things are always impossible when you refuse to consider them. That's not leadership...that's carrying water for the people financing your campaign.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)awake
(3,226 posts)Giving him friendly congress like Obama had for the first two years
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But even if he did how does he get passed the filibuster?
awake
(3,226 posts)After all John MaCain is co sponsoring a bill with E Warren to bring GS back
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)London Lover Man
(371 posts)Bernie attracts exactly these kind of people that gave up voting because they got screwed fifty ways from Tuesday. This is their chance to prove that America is tired of the same, tired old status quo that has been lurching to the right for the last 40 years. Your name is Justin, right? I'm begging you, Justin - don't give the carpetbagger your vote, as it is considered a wasted vote.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ms liberty
(8,593 posts)He'll use the bully pulpit like it should be used. And he'll have coattails. We can change congress with Bernie as POTUS, because he will cut thru the bull.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ms liberty
(8,593 posts)Of course they won't "obey" Bernie. They will fight him tooth and nail. Which is exactly what they will do with Hillary, or O'Malley. It's what they've been doing for years, for all of my adult life, in fact: Carter, the Big Dawg himself, then Al Gore, and John Kerry, and Obama, and Hillary too; they've been after democrats, liberals, and progressives. And they've been winning, a lot. I believe they have to be fought head-on, and I believe Bernie can do that, and will do that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)We need people to turn on them and vote them out of office. All compromising and triangulation has done is drive people to them. It's long past time we fight them on every front and win the population back to our side.
Our ideas are better than theirs in every way, we have just sucked at promoting them and pushing them. In the absence of strong leadership, bad leadership that speaks loudly will be listened to. It's why the tea party has grown as strong as it has. It's message sucks, but it speaks the most forcefully.
To many of us Bernie has never been the end game. He is just the start to retaking our country back to the left where it should be. His voice is going to be a rallying cry for many more progressives to get involved and drive the right out.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)and those who think exactly like you, the country is made up of lots of people. They all send elected representatives to congress, and ANY president who want to accomplish ANYTHING needs to work with them. If one doesn't want government to function, compromise isn't necessary. If all people want is someone to validate their anger and don't care about the lives of the poor and people dependent on government, then compromise doesn't matter. That is the Tea Party position. Their determination that politicians speak to their interests entirely corresponds with a desire see government cease to function. If you share that goal, by all means, don't worry about how things will get accomplished. Consider compromise a dirty word because NOTHING happens without it, and that is in fact the goal.
Additionally, you can hardly claim to support a Democratic platform or policy when you oppose Democratic politicians, now can you? You may think your worldview superior, but it is not the same as the Democratic party since you all openly oppose the president and candidates who are members of that party. Sanders has never joined the Democratic party because he does not share its goals. If you expect him to govern, as opposed to simply occupying the White House, he will have to work across both sides of the isle with parties of which is not a member. What evidence is there he is able to do that? Or again, do you simply not care?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)We are in a democracy. This is supposed to be a country governed at the consent of the people, not at the consent of one particular party, the party who happens to represent the megacorporations.
You are exactly what they wished for, someone who just goes along because they've given up before they ever tried fighting. Well that's not good enough and that is not at all what democracy is about.
Enough. Time for Bernie to shake things up. Or do you like how it is? Because with that attitude you have nothing will every change.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you were around before the revolution you would have been asking our Founding Fathers how are you going to get independence with Britain controlling us?
I guess that's what separates Bernie supporters from HRC supporters. Bernie supporters believe things can be better if we fight for them, HRC supporters have given up and will accept whatever the Republicans allow them to have.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)I'm sure glad my guy and all his supporters are willing to actually state and fight for what they believe in.
I've made no assumptions, you have stated very clearly what a defeatist you are.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They don't want Citizen's United overturned, the banks reigned in, student loan relief. No, they would rather sit on their hands and vote for a candidate that takes money hand over fist from the 1% and then whine and complain that nothing will ever get done. It's the blame everyone else, it's not my candidate's fault pity party. When your candidate SUPPORTS big banks and the rich, yes NOTHING will get done! How fricken dense do you have to be to not understand that? Supporting the status quo is their cause.
Then when this is pointed out they trot out the "haters" meme (their favorite) because you've dared to disagree with them.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)You don't care if nothing gets accomplished. What is more important is someone who says things that make you feel good.
Unlike Sanders, Clinton has worked across the isle to get legislation passed. That is how any legislation gets passed. Sanders has not succeeded in getting his agenda enacted in congress. What makes you think he'll have any more luck in DC? Or do you simply not care? What about being president will enable him to break up banks that wasn't possible as a member of the House or Senate? There is nothing to suggest the composition of congress will be any different. There have been periods of Democratic majority while Sanders has been serving, yet no bill to break up banks or implement any of what he has promised has passed.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)We all know how well that worked 
Compromise is a nice sounding and appropriately general word. How about a few detailed examples?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I mean seriously. FDR, Truman, LBJ, Reagan, GW Bush all got incredible amounts of stuff that they wanted passed against opposition congresses. And while they did compromise on some things they did not triangulate like Bill Clinton and Obama have done and Hillary Clinton will do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)But if she finds something they like, say a free trade deal that benefits corporations over people, well yes, of course they will 'compromise' like they did with Obama on TPP/TPA.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)BainsBane
(53,056 posts)(The compromise is the arguing part).
jwirr
(39,215 posts)mwooldri
(10,303 posts)The Presidency is very nice but Congress is where a lot of the political power resides. They draft the laws, they hold the purse strings. The President signs the laws, and spends the money Congress has allotted the US government, making choices as to what to do when Congress hasn't told the President how the money should be spent.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)...vs. one who refuses to put the option on the table. The choice is clear to me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)She is on record saying she WON'T. Try versus won't.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But she is bad because she won't lie to you.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)She's bad because she takes it off the table to begin with. When you are negotiating you NEVER start with your fallback position unless you're lying to people about what you're going for.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)will get her entire agenda through a GOP Congress because she will only propose legislation that she knows will pass? Which legislation is that?
While Sen. Sanders, on the other hand, would get nothing through a GOP Congress because he will propose legislation that will never because he doesn't know how to compromise, in your opinion.
So you are asserting that we need a Democrat president that will only propose legislation that will get through a GOP Congress and Ms. Clinton is the only Democrat who knows how to compromise.
So, what is some of this legislation that Ms. Clinton will be able to compromise on so we can be assured it will get through a GOP Congress. Please, some specifics.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My point is if Sanders wins he will have to compromise.
Impedimentus
(898 posts)I thought I was asking a question and trying to follow your logic. How jejune of me.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)We're talking about the candidate here. Your question was an attempt to save face by deflection.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)the chicken and the egg one.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)and a trifle repetitive. Then again, perhaps I'm being judgmental?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)No, it was a spurious question.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Complete waste of your time.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)in their campaign.
Seriously, you don't see how absolutely ridiculous that is? So why vote at all because Republicans? Nothing anyone stands for anymore matters... because Republicans.
Good grief. It's like people really don't know what democracy is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You get the people riled up, just like Bernie is doing, and you get the people to DEMAND what they deserve.
But I'll tell you how you don't do it, you don't not take the proper policy stance "because Republicans". That is so incredibly asinine I cannot believe anyone would say that. I mean really, on the campaign trail, the reason for not stating a policy that any Dem should back is "because Republicans"???
But what you are saying is so, so, SO, SO wrong. You asked your question because someone said HRC doesn't want to reinstate Glass-Steagal. She's not saying we have to try, it will be difficult... she's not saying at all. She has no plan to even try it, her campaign has said she doesn't want to do it. And your answer is that a candidate is simply not taking a policy position "because Republicans". So why are you even paying attention to politics?????
Good grief. This is what our country has come to. How fucking pathetic. Blaming Republicans because someone doesn't take a policy stance on the campaign trail.
SMH
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)WHILE YOU ARE STILL ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FOR THE PRIMARIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)A few points:
1. Asserting that Mr. Sanders would contend with a GOP Congress is moot because Mrs. Clinton would labor under the same constraint. At worse, all things here are equal, at best there's a cogent argument that Mr. Sanders would start every fight from a further left position, whereas Mrs. Clinton would not. The idea that Mrs. Clinton would strike better bargains with the GOP is based in the faulty thinking that the GOP is interested in compromise. I think everyone has been frustrated with Mr. Obama in these respects, and in this case I would expect Mrs. Clinton to carry on Mr. Obama's failed campaign of negotiation with the GOP.
2. I'm no expert, but I believe anti-trust authority is vested in the executive branch and the judicial branch by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, not the legislative branch. That would put Mr. Sanders in a position to do a lot about the banks in spite of a GOP congress.
3. Anti-Trust action aside, one would have to assume that a Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in a Sanders administration would be much more aggressive prosecuting criminal behavior on Wall Street than under a Clinton administration.
While of course it is arguable that Mr. Sanders might not be ultimately successful given the rocky history of anti-trust action and prosecutorial actions against the banking sector, I think it's clear that Mrs. Clinton would not even try. At worst Mr. Sanders stands to galvanize the people and shed light onto criminal wrong doing which was responsible for the 2007-8 financial collapse. At best, he might win.
I'm with Bernie.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Welcome to DU!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...how are you going to break up the banks when you don't work towards that goal? The answer of course is obvious: if you do not work towards that goal then it will never happen.
Now you may think the goal itself is wrongheaded; if so, make the case. But if you think the goal is a worthy one, then why would you support the person who won't pursue the goal at all, vs. the person who will? It makes no sense.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...implying that you agree with it -- or at least, don't disagree with it.
At the same time, your "realist" position is that the candidate who has already stated they will not try to break up the big banks, is preferable to the one who will try.
No you are not a realist, not by any stretch. What you are, is entrenched in your ideology, or perhaps in your support of a candidate. Either way, it has nothing to do with logic or realism.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."let" Hillary Clinton do, pray tell?
Done here. TTFN
rpannier
(24,336 posts)Why isn't she in favor of it?
You can argue that she won't, Sanders won't, O' Malley, won't be able to get it through
But it still doesn't answer why she won't support it
Presidents and candidates aren't gonna get things they say they want through congress, but they still say they're going to try because they believe in it
So, I could infer from her position that she doesn't support breaking them up at all because if she did I would assume she'd say so
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I just don't know.
rpannier
(24,336 posts)I would like to know why
BTW. Thanks for answering
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) JeffHead
(1,186 posts)A perfectly good law that's already on the books that Reagan stopped enforcing. Get it? It's already a law. No congress required. Teddy Roosevelt used it to break up Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel. All you have to do is appoint an AG and go get em. Will Hillary do that? I seriously doubt it. I think Bernie will.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)not.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I'll give them points for going directly on the record instead of promising something they have no intention of trying for.
kath
(10,565 posts)And right after her purdy speech, too.
udbcrzy2
(891 posts)http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/13/usa-election-clinton-banks-idUSL2N0ZT17R20150713
tymorial
(3,433 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)She will indeed not go after Wall Street, work to reinstate Gall Steagall, none of it. Just follow the money.
We have to get away from celebrity politics. A lot of Hillary supporters are pretty oblivious to where she stands on a lot of issues.
She will go out and talk populist but almost always in generalities. Compare that to Bernie, who says he's for this, he's for that, and he gets very detailed.
Look, Obama in 2007/8 said he was going to reign in Wall Street - once elected he did the opposite, bringing in the same old anti regulation Rubin crowd as his financial team.
Enough of neo democrats, go Bernie!
DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)Hawaiianlight
(63 posts)Hillary makes promises to mainstreet and deliveries to wallstreet. This primary will be a litmus test for the gullibility level of democrats.
Phlem
(6,323 posts) 
walkingman
(7,655 posts)this nation is controlled by corporate America and no one individual will be able to change a thing. Sadly we will be forced to vote for anyone other than the extreme right-wing GOP candidate regardless of who that is.
I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is - pretty sad state of affairs. Welcome to the America!
We're screwed!
senz
(11,945 posts)We know where she stands. On this, at least. Wouldn't hurt to remind folks about it every couple of days or so.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)gaying causes hurricanes she's "the better option" and you don't want to lose SCOTUS and "look what happens when you stay home" and so on
Quixote1818
(28,960 posts)
ram2008
(1,238 posts)She talks and talks in vague platitudes about how she wants to be our "champion." Yet folds like a lawn chair for the 1% when push comes to shove. Warren, O'Malley and Sanders are all FOR reinstating Glass-Steagal, Clinton is not. Even JOHN MCCAIN is for Glass Steagall.
If this doesn't show you where her loyalty lies, then I don't know what will.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
uwep
(108 posts)For instance "an adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left. " Did Hillary say this? Who was the adviser? Would Hillary have acknowledge this? Is DU turning into the left's tea party. The amount of verifiable truth spewed in this site is amazing. Sanders mouth pieces are doing anything but being honest. Repug lite.
awake
(3,226 posts)"Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks."
Response to uwep (Reply #178)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)no specifics at all.
As far as "encouraging" companies to share their wealth,
if she is trying tax incentives, it won't work. The taxes
might be reduced, but there will always be a way to
make the profits appear so small, that it will not make
a difference to the workers. Thus another tax break
for the corporations. However, she might talk to
Walmart about that, after all she knows these people.
Strenghtening the ACA is in direct contradiction to
making healthcare more affordable. As long as the
ACA consists in its insurance in the private sector,
there will be no way for greater affordability.
I could go on, but am just too tired.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Roll out the pretty graphics to diverge from the subject, i.e. that one of Hillary's people spilled the beans.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)This is a no-brainer.
While we're at it, break up the media companies too.
Besides, what is "too complex" about selling toxic loans as good, pretending "futures" exist now, and letting a bank invest using my money without my permission?
Nothing.
Stop it.
nightscanner59
(802 posts)We certainly cannot rely on national media outlets to do so, but a flurry of expose's critically timed just before the 2016 elections could turn a lot of heads. Suggestions: video the front and back employee entrances of Trump's hotels right when the border patrol pulls up. Laughter and lunacy like this would not fail to produce attention that reaches young hearts and minds.
I hope the new host of The Daily Show will have the gravitas of irony Jon's been so adept at conveying all along.
Young folks aren't going to pay attention to blah statistics and tend to be so put off by the hypocrisy of politicians that many lump them all into the same box, convinced by the rhetoric that voting does no good.
My late boomer/gen-x viewpoints just don't reach the Y and millennials well. I'm tuned out the moment I mention practically anything polly tickle.
Lately I'm looking for RW venues to insert seeds of dissent. I've been kicked out of some for telling truth to their rhetoric, calmly and factually. The heads there explode with namecalling, blocking and nonsense. I don't do it to change the minds of the entrenched, that's futile. But children do listen, and do pick up on who is calmly explaining, and who is having the tantrums.
As to Hillary, that does it, I'm done with her. Even if limited success at Bernie's plans, He'll get the conversation going.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)I mean seriously. The people want to break them up. The people hate them. The masters insist that this discussion never come up and never seem possible. Thank you Bernie for making it an issue.
cstanleytech
(26,318 posts)for the DoJ that actually does their job which Holder failed this country at doing might help more.
Also what about current monopoly laws? Couldnt they be used to break the banks up or what about RICO? Couldnt it to be used against the banks? After all part of the RICO act is to combat money laundering and some of the banks are almost assuredly guilty of that not to mention what about banks that aided any US citizen in hiding their assets overseas to avoid taxes?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Glass Steagal provided. So no surprise there.
PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)but not break up the ones that are 'too big to fail' or reinstate Glass-Steagall.
This is why I'm supporting Bernie. I don't want rhetoric that is mainly for applause lines any more. I want the real deal.
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts) 
RandySF
(59,167 posts)It's managed by a bank/investment firm.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Lots of people were wiped out because of banker greed and lack of regulation.
RandySF
(59,167 posts)So, hopefully, someone has a plan that follows up beyond tearing down the existing system.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)is a real reason for reform. It's the people's personal money in these 401k's, yet they harbor anxiety that criminality by their financial institutions, and/or Wall Street, could wipe them out.
The financial institutions would want concessions in a break-up. They'd be swearing on the heads of their children that everyone's money would be safe as part of their proposed compromise.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)
Sanders/Warren 2016 would be nice!
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)He's playing an "inside baseball " game right now. He's NOT Speaking for Hillary. OR speaking in an official capacity. He's speculating.
Hill will reign him in very soon.
gobears10
(310 posts)Did you read the OP and the full article in it?
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)Speaking directly to The candidate is a long long way from running the campaign , or the candidate taking his commentary as gospel. There is a room full of people, Blinder is one of like 15. DUers like to make these huge leaps of assumptive logic. Many of which are mind bogglingly naive.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)Breaking up US banks would do nothing. Closing tax loopholes might help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks
1 China Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
2 China China Construction Bank Corporation
3 United Kingdom HSBC Holdings
4 China Agricultural Bank of China
5 United States JPMorgan Chase & Co.
6 France BNP Paribas
7 China Bank of China
8 Japan Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
9 France Crédit Agricole Group
10 United Kingdom Barclays PLC
11 United States Bank of America
12 -Germany Deutsche Bank
13 United States Citigroup Inc
14 Japan Japan Post Bank
15 United States Wells Fargo
16 Japan Mizuho Financial Group
17 United Kingdom Royal Bank of Scotland Group
18 China China Development Bank
19 France Société Générale
20 Spain Banco Santander
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/wealthy-stashing-offshore_n_3179139.html
Global Super-Rich Stashing Up To $32 Trillion Offshore, Masking True Scale Of Inequality: Study
The global super-rich are stashing trillions of dollars offshore with the help of some of the world's biggest banks, putting billions of dollars out of the taxman’s reach and masking wealth inequality's true heights.
Wealthy people were hiding between $21 and $32 trillion in offshore jurisdictions around the world as of 2012, according to a 2012 study from the Tax Justice Network, an organization which aims to promote tax transparency. The study, highlighted by a recent Bloomberg News report, found that more than $12 trillion of that money was managed by 50 international banks, many of which received bailouts during the financial crisis, according to James Henry, the study’s author.
“There’s a lot more missing wealth in the world than we had known about from previous estimates,” Henry told The Huffington Post. “The real scandal is not all these individual scandals but the fact that world’s policy makers who know about this stuff, have basically done nothing.”
rsexaminer
(321 posts)Hillary's in a tough spot. Appeal to the base, or to her big money donors. I think she's trying to test the waters and find a balance that will work.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)It would behoove her to distance herself from that ilk. It's not good for the Democratic Party to align itself with that scum.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)Evar
(44 posts)This is why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton set the stage for the abuses that caused the Wall Street debacle in 2008. My candidate is Bernie Sanders, who speaks for the 99%.
Madmiddle
(459 posts)She is a center right Democrat. In other words, a Bluedog, running for president...
VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, HE IS ON THE SIDE OF AMERICANS!!!!!
marble falls
(57,172 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)"Tough regulators" means that financial support might be an ongoing thing.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)We will choose between electing another third way Democrat that campaigns as a populist but governs as an extension of Wall Street and global corporations.
Or we can vote for a candidate that has represented the interests of the poor and middle class his whole career and will continue to do the same as President of the United States...
Buns_of_Fire
(17,193 posts)I think she'd be forgiven a lot quicker for trying and failing than she would be for refusing to try at all.
Everyone knows what the odds are, given the current Crop o' Creeps in Congress. But a "champion" wouldn't let that stop them.
(Insert obligatory reference to Rocky here.)
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)I'm sure Goldman Sachs is quivering with fear...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The hand that has been feeding you millions and millions of dollars for the last 14 years.
Jeezus Henry Haploid Christ on a goddam pogo stick. Maybe THIS will wake some people up. What more evidence can anyone need to convince them that this woman represents the 1% and ONLY the 1%?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)C Moon
(12,221 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)I love* how the press likes to couch the concept of breaking up the banks as some romantic idealistic dream by "the left".
The Sunday round tables will do the same. Its all some laughable impossible fantasy dreamed up by a tiny minority of radical unrealistic far left loonies. When in fact, the repercussions of NOT breaking them up will affect more the middle class of all stripes. Its just irritating.
*not
Faux pas
(14,690 posts)surprised....NOT. Bought and paid for and not by the rest of us.
pansypoo53219
(20,993 posts)hillary COULD be just strategic. shit. you have to be INSIDE FIRST. then be bold. could obama win if he said he was gonna open up to cuba???
grandpamike1
(193 posts)What Bernie supporters and others who dislike Hillary seem to forget is this, we have to elect a Democrat to the white House, and even though it happens to be Hillary, and even if you have to hold your nose to do it, you have to realize that if a Republican is elected and they get to make 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices, then the Democratic Party as we know it or would like it to be, will be no more. So, it is imperative to have a nominee that can be elected, and we all have to vote, not like last Senate & House elections, as you can see how that worked out. Vote in your state elections and vote for a Democrat to fill the White House seat.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Yes in fact Dodd-Frank should be expanded and built up to stop this situation. This is what Alan Binder was saying. So when you say Hillary is not for restoring Glass-Stegall the reason is because Glass-Stegall does not go far enough either.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)and as a I stated before, Alan Blinder does not RUN Hillary. He advises her. So does Janet Yellen.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)with republicans holding both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court is as big a liar as Donald Trump when he promises to build a wall across the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it.
If you want to believe in fairytales that is fine. Vote for who ever you wish. It is your right as an American. Just don't be surprised that the large majority of the party you claim to be a part of, prefers reality to pie in the sky.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Why her numbers are falling?
This is an important issue...even with-in the GOP base.
While I Totally and Completely Disagree with Hillary on this (and a couple other issues) - I Sincerely appreciate her Honest answer!
