Hillary is owned by the Wall$treetBank$ter$. She won't support new Glass-Steagal OR breaking up

[peacebird]

Too big to fail banks.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill

[daleanime]

1. Duh....

how much is she raising again? I think the figure was going to be 1.5 Billion?

[BooScout]

2. How much to you reckon the Republicans will raise?

Do you honestly think that a couple of million in a war chest will be enough to take on the GOP. It's a nice thought, but not very pragmatic or in any way realistic.

[daleanime]

4. I think a junkie will always need a hit today...

and say that they can quit tomorrow. If we don't over come that problem this election cycle, we never will.

Now if you're OK with that, good for you. I'm not. But we're not going to agree, are we? So have a great day.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Owned? No, not even close. She has pledged to go after the bankers, if I was a banker I would not

think I "owned" Hillary. BTW, she is getting lots of donations because we have confidence in her experience and strength.

[udbcrzy2]

5. Cracking down on Wall Street?

'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'



From your link.

That was one of the things on my want list, but that's just me.

[Scuba]

6. She's not owned by Wall Street. Monsanto also has a piece as does Enbridge.

[Wilms]

7. Relax. They're only leasing her. n/t

[HooptieWagon]

8. Clinton will go after banksters just like Obama did....

...with a blind eye and bailouts. Oh, she'll spew some non-specifics to try to sound tough, but face it, Wall St high-rollers are her base.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. Her husband repealed the Glass-Steagal

so it is doubtful that she will try to bring it back. Hillary s more of a centrist.

[JaneyVee]

15. Glass-Steagall repeal was veto-proof.

[fredamae]

38. Here is the voting record

and those Dems who voted YEA-who are Still in office are highlighted.

http://home.earthlink.net/~tranqbase/Voted_for_repeal_of_Glass_Steagall.htm

Sen Wyden of Oregon...Another reason NOT to send you Back to DC...Again. Your sox are starting to smell, sir!

[aspirant]

39. Schumer too

[fredamae]

10. If she won't do this Or That-How likely is it

then that she would Prosecute Wall Street/Banksters under any remaining regulations/statutes/US Code, for wrong-doing?

I believe this "soft-ball bankers gala" might bite her.

[JaneyVee]

11. Then why do unions constantly donate to and endorse her?

Guess they own her too. And don't forget EMILY'S List as well.

[peacebird]

12. I quit supporting Emily's list eons ago. They only care about a candidates gender.

I look forward to seeing how rank & file union members feel about Bernie.

[JaneyVee]

14. She has a 90% pro union rating, but somehow she's "owned" by Wall Street.

And yeah, who cares about gender and social justice anyway, right?

[peacebird]

19. Bernie has 100% rating by AFL-CIO, Federal workers union, state and municipal workers union, and oth

And he isn't taking megabucks from the bankers

[JaneyVee]

20. Have bankers been donating to her campaign?

That list that gets passed around is from her time in senate. By the way, many bankers are Democrats, like my cousin who works for GS. Do you generally broadbrush and scapegoat entire groups of people as an enemy?

[Agschmid]

23. Yes clearly your cousin is a HORRIBLE person.

[kenfrequed]

28. Nice emotional ploy

Seriously.

Banks pay to get legislation that is beneficial to the banks passed. It really isn't any more complicated or human than that.

[JaneyVee]

29. But those were from individual donors.

[kenfrequed]

32. Well

I am glad that you have your spin worked out for the day.

Would you apply the same logic to donations from polluting corporations and oil companies? I am sorry, but I don't think either of us would give the republicans a pass if they used that kind of argument.

[JaneyVee]

37. 2 things:

1-That donation list is from her time in senate from NY. Her campaign now just reported a record breaking $45Million, 92% of which came from donors who gave $100 or less. 2-Bankers give to Democrats because historically stocks perform much better under Democrats than Republicans.

No need to scapegoat an entire group as enemies. Like I said, my cousin works for GS, makes a lot of money, donates to liberal causes, coaches little league, and hosts fundraisers for homeless families.

ETA: Hillary also receives plenty of donations from labor unions, teachers unions, planned parenthood, and EMILY'S List. Never hear her critics complain about them though.

[NorthCarolina]

13. I for one am REALLY looking forward to Bernie-Hillary debate(s).

He offers specific details, while she speaks in broad generalizations. It will be interesting to see how the two campaign methods will flesh out in the debates.

[DanTex]

16. Calm down. Not breaking up big banks or reinstating GS are a far cry from being

"owned" by Wall Street. There are plenty of liberal economists who don't think those are the best ways to deal with systemic risk. For example, Paul Krugman:

Anyway, I have a quite different problem with the idea that breaking up big banks is the key to reform: I don’t think it would work.

My basic view is that banking, left to its own devices, inherently poses risks of destabilizing runs; I’m a Diamond-Dybvig guy. To contain banking crises, the government ends up stepping in to protect bank creditors. This in turn means that you have to regulate banks in normal times, both to reduce the need for rescues and to limit the moral hazard posed by the rescues when they happen.

And here’s the key point: it’s not at all clear that the size of individual banks makes much difference to this argument. It’s true that the big losses in mortgage-backed securities seem to have been concentrated at the big financial institutions. But the losses on commercial real estate, which look likely to be even worse per dollar lent, have been largely among smaller banks.

Remember, the great bank runs of the early 1930s began with a run on the Bank of the United States, which was only the 28th largest bank in the country at the time.

The point is that breaking up the big players is neither necessary nor sufficient to protect us against financial crises. That’s why my focus is on reducing leverage.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/too-big-to-fail-fail-2/

[JaneyVee]

21. Exactly, because many big banks aren't even in the USA. So...

They would go unaffected anyway.

[DanTex]

22. Yes, for one. Also, a lot of the problematic banks last time (e.g. Bear Stearns, Lehman) weren't

the huge mega-banks to begin with. And they were pure investment banks, not joint joint investment-commercial banks, so they wouldn't have been affected by Glass-Steagall. The financial system is complicated, it needs to be better regulated, but I'm afraid we're not going to get beyond anything but slogans during this primary season.

[jeff47]

26. Being "mega-banks" is the problem.

Because the government did not have to be on the hook for Lehman's failures. Fortunately for Lehman, they collapsed while W was still president and he could arrange a bailout.

But the FDIC means the government is on the hook for Citibank's failures. Why avoid risk when you have a guaranteed bailout?

[DanTex]

27. Dodd Frank addressed the too big to fail problem with Ordinary Liquidation Authority.

As Krugman points out, it is working: the borrowing advantage that mega-banks used to have due to their implicit bailout insurance has basically disappeared now that the government can seize them without rewarding shareholders.

The answer is that the government should seize troubled institutions when it bails them out, so that they can be kept running without rewarding stockholders or bondholders who don’t need rescue. In 2008 and 2009, however, it wasn’t clear that the Treasury Department had the necessary legal authority to do that. So Dodd-Frank filled that gap, giving regulators Ordinary Liquidation Authority, also known as resolution authority, so that in the next crisis we can save “systemically important” banks and other institutions without bailing out the bankers.

Bankers, of course, hate this idea; and Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell tried to help their friends with the Orwellian claim that resolution authority was actually a gift to Wall Street, a form of corporate welfare, because it would grease the skids for future bailouts.

But Wall Street knew better. As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, if being labeled systemically important were actually corporate welfare, institutions would welcome the designation; in fact, they have fought it tooth and nail. And a new study from the Government Accountability Office shows that while large banks were able to borrow more cheaply than small banks before financial reform passed, that advantage has now essentially disappeared. To some extent this may reflect generally calmer markets, but the study nonetheless suggests that reform has done at least part of what it was supposed to do.

Did reform go far enough? No. In particular, while banks are being forced to hold more capital, a key force for stability, they really should be holding much more. But Wall Street and its allies wouldn’t be screaming so loudly, and spending so much money in an effort to gut the law, if it weren’t an important step in the right direction. For all its limitations, financial reform is a success story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-is-working.html

[kenfrequed]

30. Ah

Well here is an article that I think illustrates why whe should be suspicious of anyont taking too much money from the banks and financial services.

Same author.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/opinion/paul-krugman-wall-street-vampires.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[DanTex]

31. Not a problem for either Hillary or Bernie. Only 3.4% of her campaign funds come from bankers.

[kenfrequed]

33. Ah...

Good to know you don't have a list of ready responses or anything like that.

Also good to know you didn't bother to read the article in question.

[DanTex]

34. Well, the "Hillary is owned by banks" lie gets repeated so often that

I've memorized the statistics by now. You can help out by repeating the facts, now that you know them, whenever you hear anyone repeating that false talking point, which I can only assume originated with the GOP.

[kenfrequed]

35. You aren't repeating facts.

You repeat spin. There is a subtle difference.

Trying to claim that all the donations from the banks are being made by friendly little bank tellers would be an example of that.

[DanTex]

36. 3.4% of her donations come from bankers. That is a fact. Sorry you don't like it, but it is.

I never said all the donations are from friendly bank tellers. I'm sure some of them are from arrogant jerks. But when you total the amount she receives from all bankers, and divide it by the total she's raised from all sources, it comes out to 3.4%.

That's a fact. You can either ignore it and keep posting false talking points, or you can accept it and think of something else to attack her with. Your court.

[Agschmid]

17. So many $ signs in that headline...

I'm sure that will really get the point across.

[Sheepshank]

18. I thought I'd heard lst night a sound clip on MSNBC

a soundbite from her most recent speech, that banking regulations need start at Glass-Steagal...but then MUST move above and beyond and add more reguations.

[jeff47]

25. She said some things in her big speech that were shortly contradicted by

her campaign's "financial advisor".

In other words, either her campaign is completely dysfunctional, or it is intentionally saying different things to different groups of people.

[NCTraveler]

24. Put some more $'s in words. It will make more people believe it.

They like that stuff.