2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary in a tough spot as Glass-Steagall takes center stage
It seems Hillary is in a tough spot on this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1251
The debate is leaving the 2016 field, and particularly Hillary Clinton, in a tough spot.
A lot of people view it as a litmus test, said Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of the Wall Street reform group Better Markets.
For those who are in favor of restoring the law, a candidates backing Glass-Steagall says I get it, I get it. I will be tough on Wall Street. Trust me, Kelleher said.
Calls from the left and right for a return to Glass-Steagall have popped up all over the campaign trail, particularly from feisty populist underdogs.
The calls are more popular on the Democratic side, where both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley have echoed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in supporting restoration of the law.
In the Republican field, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the only active candidate who backs putting Glass-Steagall back in place, though former Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposed a new banking firewall as part of his Wall Street overhaul before he dropped out of the race.
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and many of her potential GOP rivals are trying to find space in the center to tap into public unrest over Wall Street without turning off Wall Streets deep fundraising wells.
An October Washington Post/ABC News poll found that most members of both parties favor tougher rules for the financial sector, with 67 percent of overall Americans in favor of a further crackdown.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Or something
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)you only hear what you want to hear.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Old Crow
(2,212 posts)Yes, please point us to this tough legislation stronger than Glass-Steagall that you say Hillary is planning to enact.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)nice streak you've got going there.
DianeK
(975 posts)she wagged her finger at them in 2007..that did a bunch of good! she is desperate to hold on to that bottomless well of dollars flowing into her campaign...that does not in any way come close to being tough on Wallstreet..this issue is Hillary's achilles heel
Scuba
(53,475 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)But, she did her job and everything is so much better now.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)what Hillary has published on the issue, you a just a blind
Sanders supporter
peacebird
(14,195 posts)So, does she have a plan somewhere on line that you can point us to?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)to help you put together a coherent point.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)the tech stock market that WAS NOT responsible for the crash of the US economy...The banks, both US and Canadian, have added more than a million USD's to her personal account...Yeah, the 1%er will be very tough on the greedy bastards...Well, not so much...you know, hand that feeds you and all...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)It actually wouldn't surprise me, well, maybe a little, but not very much.
and needless to say, I wouldn't find it very believable.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)let alone it being some sort of litmus test.
This is not to say that Wall St. reform isn't an issue, I just don't think that a candidate's position on that particular law is going to move a large segment of voters.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Democrat should be opposed to restoring that legislation which helped avoid the collapse we witnessed in 2008 which is still devastating so many Americans.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)let alone cares about it one iota.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)but the very second you say "Food Stamps" (replace it with Wall Street Reform) they do XD
People care a whole lot about it.
think
(11,641 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)why. As soon as they begin to realize it is the reason that their money is part of the "Too big to fail" banks gambling games on overseas investments and why there is now less money for local investment in their own communities they will know. Just a matter of time and education.
The only thing they do not know is what this threat to their own money is and what would stop it - Glass-Steagall.
The New Democrats are banking on the voters being stupid. But this election we are talking real issues and learning what is at stack.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)And really, why would they be? Considering all the money they have given her. Goldman Sux CEO is on the record saying he doesn't care if the next pres is Hillary or Jeb, all the same to him.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)"Just for viewers at home who may not be reading up on this, Glass-Steagall is the Depression-era banking law repealed in 1999 that prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking and insurance activities. Secretary Clinton, he raises a fundamental difference on this stage. Sen. Sanders wants to break up the big Wall Street banks. You don't. You say charge the banks more, continue to monitor them. Why is your plan better?"
Backing up: When Bill Clinton took office, it was still illegal in the United States for commercial banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies. But toward the end of Clinton's second term, he signed a bill called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that essentially created Too Big to Fail "supermarket" banks like Citigroup.
This isn't the only reason the financial system is so dangerous now. There's also the matter of the extreme interconnectedness of the financial services industry. This problem came violently into play in 2008, when the failure of a single idiot investment bank, Lehman Brothers, caused a chain reaction that nearly blew up the whole financial system.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-take-on-banks-wont-hold-up-20151014#ixzz3rJ5KHoex
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Those opposed to Hillary use them as battering ram hoping no ones ever understands that the law would not have prevented the recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0
Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons
OCT. 16, 2015
Paul Krugman
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had an argument about financial regulation during Tuesdays debate but it wasnt about whether to crack down on banks. Instead, it was about whose plan was tougher. The contrast with Republicans like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, who have pledged to reverse even the moderate financial reforms enacted in 2010, couldnt be stronger.
For what its worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But its not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from shadow banks like Lehman Brothers, which dont take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasnt.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)but the very second you say "Wall Street Reform", "Food Stamps", "Bailout", people know exactly what you're talking about.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)As Krugman pointed out
Mrs Clinton has the better plan
George II
(67,782 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)too bad for her nobody can believe it'll last past January 2017