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
HRC "was not protecting jobs; she was at best protecting bank profits and senior level bonuses"
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/elizabeth-warren-on-how-clinton-backed-student-loan-and-mortgage-debt-slavery-with-2005-bankruptcy-reform-vote.htmlHillary Clinton was so proud of her role in stopping this bankruptcy legislation that she touted it in her autobiography. Yet in her first act as a newly-elected Senator from New York, she made a 180 degree change and voted in favor of the bill. And Warren makes clear that from her earlier discussions with Clinton that she knew full well what was at stake in terms of the consequences to families.
How does Warren explain that change? She attributes it to the power of lobbying dollars in Washington, particularly from the consumer financial services industry, which has long been a top spender. Warren also highlights that financial firms were now Clinton’s constituents and she therefore was obligated to represent them.
But who precisely were these banking constituents? It was the top executives of the big players headquartered in New York City, such as JP Morgan and Citigroup. Keep in mind that Clinton was not protecting jobs in New York state. Credit card operations, such as back offices and call centers, are located in much lower cost regions (for instance, Citigroup’s big credit card processing operation has long been in South Dakota; American Express’ is in Phoenix). So Clinton was not protecting jobs; she was at best protecting bank profits and senior level bonuses. And it does not appear that she gave much thought to the costs to the many borrowers in her jurisdiction.
The lesson seems to be that Hillary Clinton is capable of acting on good impulses, as long as she has nothing at stake.
How does Warren explain that change? She attributes it to the power of lobbying dollars in Washington, particularly from the consumer financial services industry, which has long been a top spender. Warren also highlights that financial firms were now Clinton’s constituents and she therefore was obligated to represent them.
But who precisely were these banking constituents? It was the top executives of the big players headquartered in New York City, such as JP Morgan and Citigroup. Keep in mind that Clinton was not protecting jobs in New York state. Credit card operations, such as back offices and call centers, are located in much lower cost regions (for instance, Citigroup’s big credit card processing operation has long been in South Dakota; American Express’ is in Phoenix). So Clinton was not protecting jobs; she was at best protecting bank profits and senior level bonuses. And it does not appear that she gave much thought to the costs to the many borrowers in her jurisdiction.
The lesson seems to be that Hillary Clinton is capable of acting on good impulses, as long as she has nothing at stake.
27 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Just like the rest of her views on things like gay rights, war, torture,...
She is obviously a very progressive politician and the best person the Democrats could hope to have as their candidate 
"Unhinged personal attacks" on Hillary that another poster is talking about? I only ask because it seems like a legitimate policy concern. 
