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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
7. Not exactly: She was against it, before she was for it, before she didn't vote on it.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:19 AM
Mar 2016
Hillary Clinton's Shadowy History With Shadow Banking

She was against it, before she was for it, before she didn't vote on it.


by Zach Carter
Huffington Post, Jan. 14, 2016

WASHINGTON -- With Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) showing renewed strength in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has spent much of January attempting to make inroads with progressive voters enamored with her rival's Wall Street policies. Sure, Sanders talks tough on big banks, Clinton and her allies have alleged, but he's soft on "shadow banking" -- a complex, risky sector of the economy.

Like the Clinton campaign's recent broadside against Sanders' Medicare-for-all health care plan, the attack is misleading and dishonest. It also sidesteps her complicated record on shadow banking as a senator, which includes a vote in favor of a bill that eventually fueled shadow banking in the mortgage market and exacerbated the financial crisis. Clinton's team, moreover, continues to criticize legislation supported by both Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that would ameliorate the problems created by that bill.

The saga surrounding that vote mirrors Clinton's mixed record on financial reform issues. In the waning years of Bill Clinton's presidency, then-first lady Hillary Clinton arranged a meeting with then-Harvard University Law School professor Elizabeth Warren. Warren quickly convinced Clinton to oppose a nasty bankruptcy bill then brewing Congress, which would have helped credit card companies at the expense of families in financial distress. The White House, which had been leaning toward supporting the bill, quickly reversed course, and vetoed it.

But after joining the Senate in 2001, Clinton voted for a very similar bill, which became law after a few other tweaks in 2005. Clinton sat out the 2005 vote, and has said she would have opposed it.

The law's effect on consumers are well documented. Bankruptcy is a court-supervised financial do-over. If you accept having your credit score ruined and being denied access to credit cards and other consumer loans for several years, a judge can slash your credit card balances and other debts. Warren's research had shown that most people file for bankruptcy because they have been through a divorce, lost a job, or been hit with heavy medical bills -- not because they purchased too many gold-plated TVs with a credit card. Making it harder to file for bankruptcy was simply helping banks kick people while they were down. It proved especially painful during the Great Recession.

But other important aspects of the bill had nothing to do with consumers. They focused on corporate lending, and allowed those pushing various shadow banking products the opportunity to skirt key rules. In particular, they made it easier to provide funding to subprime mortgage houses packing together securities that they intended to sell to other investors.

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-shadow-banking_us_5696d0fae4b0b4eb759d2606

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Actions don't matter. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #1
The Oral Optics Octafish Mar 2016 #2
Reading is for nerds tazkcmo Mar 2016 #3
Michigan Gov. Nerd thought it best to hide the lead contamination from the public. Octafish Mar 2016 #5
No surprise to me. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #6
Please accept my condolences on your loss. Octafish Mar 2016 #8
Thank you, Octafish. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #9
That does not actually tell the whole story. Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #4
Not exactly: She was against it, before she was for it, before she didn't vote on it. Octafish Mar 2016 #7
So she did not vote for the bill Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #10
Yes, they're not. Octafish Mar 2016 #11
So because deregulation Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #12
Considering how she consistently supports Wall Street over Main Street, yes. Octafish Mar 2016 #14
I don't see how this proves Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #15
It's not supposed to prove anything. Octafish Mar 2016 #17
Actually, yes, I do Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #18
I can relate. I felt the EXACT SAME WAY when I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Octafish Mar 2016 #19
You keep on posting long articles Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #20
Why do you care if I post long articles? They're solid fact. Octafish Mar 2016 #21
Because they're off topic Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #22
Off topic to you, but who cares? Octafish Mar 2016 #23
Why would I argue that? Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #24
So why demand I prove to you what you don't want to know? Octafish Mar 2016 #25
K&R amborin Mar 2016 #13
Brooksley Born: Still Telling the Uncomfortable Truths About Wall Street Octafish Mar 2016 #16
"Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position." The end. Mic drop n/t arcane1 Mar 2016 #26
''Integrity is for paupers.'' Octafish Mar 2016 #27
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Cement Life Raft - Pr...»Reply #7