Hillary Clinton's Speech to Nasdaq (Dec. 5, 2007)

[Baobab]

Related articles/Context:

Hillary Clinton Told Wall Street To ‘Cut It Out’—Not So Much, the Record Shows: Her legislation on banking and housing finance stalled as crisis escalated.

https://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-mixed-record-on-wall-street-tough-cut-it-out-talk

"Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President"

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/15/release-clintons-wall-street-speeches-could-end-her-candidacy-president

[cantbeserious]

1. HRC -- Proud To Represent Financial Predators - Preying On The 99% Daily

eom

[KeepItReal]

2. Start at 6:05. And try not to throw up by 9:15.

[Baobab]

4. The whole point is that she claimed that this speech is where she told Wall St. to "cut it out" but

blink and you'll miss it.

[JDPriestly]

7. If Bernie had given a speech on the same topic to the same crowd, that crowd would have

known that their game was up and that it was time to change their ways.

Hillary knew there was trouble but did not have the strength and courage to let the NASDAQ audience know that they had better do something to change their ways or else.

And, of course, the "or else" has still not happened. There has still not really been adequate reform.

There has been some reform legislation, but the banks have not, or at least a number of them have not, taken it seriously. They haven't really complied. They are as arrogant and selfish as ever.

That's a mistake. Bernie in the White House would make this right.

Hillary -- just not strong and courageous enough when it comes to her friends on Wall Street. (And I use the term Wall Street to refer to the entire financial sector and not literally just Wall Street.)

[daleanime]

3. Bookmarked

I'm going to bed now, the last thing I need is nightmares.

[tirebiter]

5. Want A Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/#37f0150567a1

...it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” (available at Amazon.com) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression.

Gary Hart recently wrote in The Huffington Post,

“Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth.”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is attributed with saying “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.“ So even though we may hold very strong opinions about parties and politics, it is worthwhile to look at historical facts. This book’s authors are to be commended for spending several years, and many thousands of student research assistant man-days, sorting out economic performance from the common viewpoint – and the broad theories upon which much policy has been based. Their compendium of economic facts is the most illuminating document on economic performance during different administrations, and policies, than anything previously published.

Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under
Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administration

Individual and corporate increase in wealth is indivisible. You can't have one without the other and even Goldman Sachs makes more profit with a Democrat at the helm. The issue is taxation and the Republicans keep winning that argument based on myth in off year elections.

[JDPriestly]

6. She knew and knows. How can she run her campaign on protecting Wall Street from

having to deal with the break-ups that are needed to keep their heads above water.

This speech was given prior to the 2008 crisis. Why didn't Hillary offer real solutions instead of weak speeches like this one?

[delrem]

9. Hillary is bought. Her "solutions" are geared to profit her owners.

Hillary is also a professional politician. Her role is to enrich her employers.

Simple as that.

eta: that's the total upshot of approx $200million private income from paid speeches alone, by a a couple who have only one thing to sell, political influence.

[delrem]

8. Oh my! What an empty shell.

No wonder they like her to the tune of $billions$.

[mdbl]

10. It was a nice speech but

when she gave it she should have known it would fall on deaf ears. They don't care about the "right thing to do for America" they only care about themselves. What the audience did love is her incrementalism. Keep the status quo and nudge a little seems to be her way of doing things. It gives her audience the feeling they really won't have to deal with it. Kind of like, I might give to charity if I feel like it. Most of them probably felt their duty was finished just by listening to the entire speech.

[Aldo Leopold]

11. I wonder if she mentioned in one of her recent Wall St. speeches that she

intended to run for president. Wouldn't that constitute an FEC violation?

[Arizona Roadrunner]

12. Why Hillary Clinton's Goldman-Sachs speeches matter article.

Why Hillary Clinton's Goldman-Sachs speeches matter.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/

[BeanMusical]

13. Cut it out, my ass.

[rosesaylavee]

14. I couldn't watch all the way but saw most of it... it wasn't

a bad speech so much as dispassionate delivery. Tone deaf delivery in describing the pain people were experiencing because of the then only escalating housing crisis... 10 months before the bottom fell out. Imagine someone delivering this as if they were trying to emotionally persuade those in attendance. Whoever wrote this speech - maybe Bill? - it wasn't her. She could be reading a cereal box for all the emotion she displays here.