Either Glass-Steagall is restored or we will face the implementation of Dodd-Frank's Title II, which mandates a "bail-in" aka "depositor's haircut" aka ILLEGAL CONFISCATION of the public's assets within bad banks.
LaRouche, Hoenig, Simon Johnson - MANY people are warning about this. Hillary is a joke - she should resign immediately so we can get a Democratic party mobilized around reality - PASS GLASS-STEAGALL to reorganize the financial system on OUR terms, or face a bail-out/bail-in on Wall Street's terms!
LaRouche, Hoenig, Simon Johnson - MANY people are warning about this. Hillary is a joke - she should resign immediately so we can get a Democratic party mobilized around reality - PASS GLASS-STEAGALL to reorganize the financial system on OUR terms, or face a bail-out/bail-in on Wall Street's terms!
Remember vote for the person is telling you what you don't want to hear... Most of the times that candidate is more honest...
1
I have to take issue with Irwin's claim that, "Bill Clinton’s administration oversaw the deregulation on Wall Street."
In fact, according to nobel-laureate economist Paul Krugman, writing in May 2009 in the New York Times, "...The prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it."
It was Reagan Era deregulations of the financial industry that led to the S&L collapse, and set the stage for our current mess.
In fact, according to nobel-laureate economist Paul Krugman, writing in May 2009 in the New York Times, "...The prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it."
It was Reagan Era deregulations of the financial industry that led to the S&L collapse, and set the stage for our current mess.
5
"...the Glass-Steagall Act...reversed by Congress during the Bill Clinton administration (an action that had less to do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest)...."
Uhm, could the Times at the very least acknowledge that the action was controversial and that there are legitimate arguments in support of the notion that it in fact did lead in part to the financial crisis?
Geeeeeeez.....
Uhm, could the Times at the very least acknowledge that the action was controversial and that there are legitimate arguments in support of the notion that it in fact did lead in part to the financial crisis?
Geeeeeeez.....
Right at this moment the Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) program is in chaos because the regulator in the HUD is over Ginnie Mae.
Let take Wells Fargo Bank who been having MERS draw up forged mortgages, deed of trust and security deed and filed then to the various local county land recorders. At the start of the financial crisis in Sept 2008 the bank Washington Mutual (WaMu) was the larges bank failure in the history of mankind, however Wells Fargo was servicing all of WaMu's FHA & VA loans that were in the Ginnie Mae MBS.
Wells & MERS illegally submitted to the courts that it was the owner of the WaMu loans but never purchase the debt and has admitted that fact, however they foreclosed claiming to be the owner of! 7yrs of these crimes not only with the WaMu loans but the entire 50,000 Dept of VA loan were never process for the HAMP or VA HAMP but were ticked as if they were, while not addressing the military with the mandatory "Borrower Notice" that gave a 30 day appeal process.
So we got 3,800 military victims under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act (SCRA) get restitution in non-judicial states not no one of the 50.000 victims have received restitution promise under the HAMP, VA HAMP or the Independent (wink wink) Foreclosure Review Board where the regulator (OCC, Fed & Justice Dept) conveniently took out the "No Standing"=Thief by Deception and was calling it a civil case and not a criminal one? Forgeries & 4th Amendment Rights violated of all 50,000!
Let take Wells Fargo Bank who been having MERS draw up forged mortgages, deed of trust and security deed and filed then to the various local county land recorders. At the start of the financial crisis in Sept 2008 the bank Washington Mutual (WaMu) was the larges bank failure in the history of mankind, however Wells Fargo was servicing all of WaMu's FHA & VA loans that were in the Ginnie Mae MBS.
Wells & MERS illegally submitted to the courts that it was the owner of the WaMu loans but never purchase the debt and has admitted that fact, however they foreclosed claiming to be the owner of! 7yrs of these crimes not only with the WaMu loans but the entire 50,000 Dept of VA loan were never process for the HAMP or VA HAMP but were ticked as if they were, while not addressing the military with the mandatory "Borrower Notice" that gave a 30 day appeal process.
So we got 3,800 military victims under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act (SCRA) get restitution in non-judicial states not no one of the 50.000 victims have received restitution promise under the HAMP, VA HAMP or the Independent (wink wink) Foreclosure Review Board where the regulator (OCC, Fed & Justice Dept) conveniently took out the "No Standing"=Thief by Deception and was calling it a civil case and not a criminal one? Forgeries & 4th Amendment Rights violated of all 50,000!
Relax, people. If Hillary said the sun rises in the east, most of you would gaffaw. But back here on planet earth, proposals that have a chance of passing are the ones we need to take seriously.
Yes, we love Bernie... we love what he says and we love that he is impacting the Dem platform, but if Bernie were to be nominated your worst fears would be realized in the form of a Republican president.
So, time to grow up.... those commenters who aren't pretending to be dems but are really repubs trying to derail Clinton need to stop smoking the funny stuff. Cut her a break. She's a brilliant, well-intending woman with outstanding leadership qualities.
Yes, we love Bernie... we love what he says and we love that he is impacting the Dem platform, but if Bernie were to be nominated your worst fears would be realized in the form of a Republican president.
So, time to grow up.... those commenters who aren't pretending to be dems but are really repubs trying to derail Clinton need to stop smoking the funny stuff. Cut her a break. She's a brilliant, well-intending woman with outstanding leadership qualities.
4
Article should be entitled "How Hillary Clinton SAYS she would regulate Wall Street," since her actions and words often have little in common.
4
(an action that had less to do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest)
Oh no you don't. If you are going to give a blanket dismissal such as the one above you had better explain yourself. Were CDOs the domain of just commercial banks or did their investment bank divisions also play a part. One enabled the other.
Oh no you don't. If you are going to give a blanket dismissal such as the one above you had better explain yourself. Were CDOs the domain of just commercial banks or did their investment bank divisions also play a part. One enabled the other.
1
"It was reversed by Congress during the Bill Clinton administration (an action that had less to do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest)."
Ever the apologist for the Clintons - Bill signed the repeal which made it law. You can't get more responsible that that.
Ever the apologist for the Clintons - Bill signed the repeal which made it law. You can't get more responsible that that.
3
OMG she would not regulate Wall Street at all. She is a moderate Republican at best who's backers are major corporations and banks. She will do and will say anything now to get elected, but I don't trust her to follow through on anything she is promising if she would ever be elected President. The only consistent belief she has had throughout her career is to do and say anything to further enrichment of the Clintons and her corporate benefactors.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
3
Hilary is a Clinton... a Big Money Fake Democrat. She and Bill live in NYC where Wall Street is the playground of the 1%. Its all buddy buddy between the Clintons and Wall Street. She will say anything to give a false impression of Democratic values and then walk away once in office. I voted for Bill and I voted for Barack. I will not be voting for another one of those fake Democrats again. Hilary is not going to get my vote even if she is the candidate. i refuse to be used and taken for granted by the established neo-liberal fake democrats ever again, even if the country is going to fall into the hands of the far worse republican tools of the rich. Maybe our country has to get worse before people are willing to fight what needs to be fought for.
6
So, in other words, Hillary Romney Clinton has flip-flopped yet again and is now talking tough on Wall Street, clearly in response to the meteoric rise of challenger Bernie Sanders.
I am so done with this fake, insincere corporal shrill, and I sincerely wish the NYTimes would stop acting as her biggest cheerleader and call out her phony, narcissistic, I'll-say-anything-to-get-elected "platform" for the sham that it is.
I am so done with this fake, insincere corporal shrill, and I sincerely wish the NYTimes would stop acting as her biggest cheerleader and call out her phony, narcissistic, I'll-say-anything-to-get-elected "platform" for the sham that it is.
6
On July 16, 2015, The Wall Street Journal published a revealing article entitled "Wall Street Is Betting on Bush and Clinton." The article revealed that Wall Street is donating to both candidates and will be quite pleased if either Bush or Clinton emerge as the next president. The WSJ article notes:
"Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, collected about $300,000 from employees at the nation’s six largest banks, with about $88,000 coming from Morgan Stanley executives alone, and about $62,000 from workers at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. [...] The Clintons have long enjoyed ties to Wall Street, a vulnerability for her with some Democratic primary voters who blame big banks for many of the nation’s financial problems."
Clearly, Wall Street bankers realize that Clinton's regulatory proposals are mostly fluff for naive voters on the campaign trail. In light of Wall Street's ongoing donations to Hillary's campaign and her much-documented history as a "big-business Democrat," I'm very amused whenever Hillary's ardent supporters describe her economic policies as akin to Elizabeth Warren.
Unlike Warren, Clinton is career politician who appeals to low-information voters in the Democratic Party. Why do we keep pretending she is anything other than what she is? Even the smallest tadpoles in Wall Street's pond know the election of Hillary or Jeb will be great news for their businesses.
"Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, collected about $300,000 from employees at the nation’s six largest banks, with about $88,000 coming from Morgan Stanley executives alone, and about $62,000 from workers at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. [...] The Clintons have long enjoyed ties to Wall Street, a vulnerability for her with some Democratic primary voters who blame big banks for many of the nation’s financial problems."
Clearly, Wall Street bankers realize that Clinton's regulatory proposals are mostly fluff for naive voters on the campaign trail. In light of Wall Street's ongoing donations to Hillary's campaign and her much-documented history as a "big-business Democrat," I'm very amused whenever Hillary's ardent supporters describe her economic policies as akin to Elizabeth Warren.
Unlike Warren, Clinton is career politician who appeals to low-information voters in the Democratic Party. Why do we keep pretending she is anything other than what she is? Even the smallest tadpoles in Wall Street's pond know the election of Hillary or Jeb will be great news for their businesses.
6
I don't mean to throw cold water on the idea of further reform, but for what it's worth, effecting the kind of wholesale regulation that people seem to want entails a number of things, among them the consolidation of regulatory bodies. Right now we have the Fed, the FDIC, OCC, Treasury, SEC, CFTC, the CFPB, FSOC, the NCUA, plus 50 state financial regulators some of whom also oversee insurance activities (which are regulated purely at the state level), some of whom don't. And so like the fabled blind men who touch an elephant and describe different things, very often in financial regulation, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
2
Unless she decides that the right thing to do is to break up the too big to fail banks and/or divorce Bill -- I simply do not believe her.
Perhaps, there hasn't been an actual progressive Dem in the White House since LBJ -- note to editor STOP calling Sanders left (they left long time ago) or a socialist (social reformer if you must-- but perhaps he merely wants to put back Eisenhower era taxes!! -- I doubt that Sanders has called for that or the rei-nstitution of the luxury tax and lowering the amount that an be exempt from the estate tax -- I mean I know the rich are supposed to get richer by $15 bucks an hour is scarcely 30K a year. )
Meantime, why does the FED think it's nec to prop up Wall Street? The new economy has little to do with the old economy -- unless you go back to the days when every middle-class household had a maid-- now a caretaker for Mom/Dad!
Perhaps, there hasn't been an actual progressive Dem in the White House since LBJ -- note to editor STOP calling Sanders left (they left long time ago) or a socialist (social reformer if you must-- but perhaps he merely wants to put back Eisenhower era taxes!! -- I doubt that Sanders has called for that or the rei-nstitution of the luxury tax and lowering the amount that an be exempt from the estate tax -- I mean I know the rich are supposed to get richer by $15 bucks an hour is scarcely 30K a year. )
Meantime, why does the FED think it's nec to prop up Wall Street? The new economy has little to do with the old economy -- unless you go back to the days when every middle-class household had a maid-- now a caretaker for Mom/Dad!
2
Mr. Irwin does not have in this article Senator Sanders proposal on regulating Wall Street.Nor does it have a proposal by Martin O*Malley.So, is this an indication that Senator Sanders does not have a Wall Street regulation proposal other than "break up the big banks"?That cannot be correct.
5
"Her approach stops short of the wholesale financial reform favored by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren."
I saw the above summary of this article on the homepage and felt no need to read any further. I'm not interested in anything less than "wholesale financial reform."
I saw the above summary of this article on the homepage and felt no need to read any further. I'm not interested in anything less than "wholesale financial reform."
7
Hillary Clinton regulating Wall Street is akin to have the fox caring for the chicken coop!
Only Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren will do! Feel the Bern — wake up NY Times, listen to the people.
Only Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren will do! Feel the Bern — wake up NY Times, listen to the people.
11
"The desire to assail too-big-to-fail-banks energizes the left and has propelled Senator Elizabeth Warren and the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders. But some of the party’s most prodigious donors come from the financial industry and don’t much care for its vilification. And Bill Clinton’s administration oversaw the deregulation on Wall Street."
Hillary will say what is correct and do what is incorrect because she is dependent on the prodigious donors and has no trouble being as duplicitous as their donations are prodigious.
Hillary will say what is correct and do what is incorrect because she is dependent on the prodigious donors and has no trouble being as duplicitous as their donations are prodigious.
6
Face it: Hillary is part of the problem. She has no stomach for regulating Wall Street - such concessions as she's willing to state publicly are in service to her ambition and her acknowledgement of the reality of the Warren-Sanders "problem" she never expected to have to confront. But her heart isn't in it, and it shows. That's the more important difference between what she's willing to do and what they're willing to do: they really believe what they say - Hillary is just pandering.
6
Whatever you think of Hillary's plan and approach, at least she recognizes a problem and offers a solution. It's more Dodd-Frank than Bernie Sanders and relies on regulators actually regulating as opposed to being captured. That said, it is light years ahead of the Republican ostrich approach which us to pander to Wall street and the tea party simultaneously which requires the ability to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
3
Since Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, why would anyone believe a word she says?
8
This is proof Hillary Clinton will say anything and adopt any position she thinks will get her votes. how can she honestly think anyone will not see through this. it is the same logic used by the Republicans for years which is just assuming all ordinary Americans are stupid and trust what is on FOX news.
Sanders and O'Malley have had plans in place long ago. Hillary cherry picked from them and concocted, or her campaign did for her, a policy for Wall Street reform which she will never follow through on if elected.
She simply is not believable in any of her positions and cannot be trusted.
Sanders and O'Malley have had plans in place long ago. Hillary cherry picked from them and concocted, or her campaign did for her, a policy for Wall Street reform which she will never follow through on if elected.
She simply is not believable in any of her positions and cannot be trusted.
9
Thanks, Neil. Can you give us some detail on the Sanders plan now?
10
The only thing you can count on from Hillary is that she will take any position that she believes will get her to the White House. Once she gets to the Oval Office she will be sure to protect her Wall Street patrons.
6
The irony in this article runs several layers deep.
5
Who believes Hillary about anything. It was just a few years ago that she said the TPP was the "gold-standard" for trade deals. She is the ultimate filp-flopper.
8
At least Clinton and Sanders won't be arguing over whom to put on the face of a ten-dollar bill. For that we can be thankful.
1
Regulate Wall Street? I think Hillary would be wise to focus on prison reform, given the pace at which the FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified information, and her emails and server is heating up!
1
Why don't you do an article covering Sanders's and O'Malley's positions rather than only covering Hillary's. Better yet, run an article comparing all their positions. Even a chart would be better than this one sided coverage.
9
Mrs.Clinton will do nothing but serve herself as always.
6
Mrs. Clinton has faced the full wrath of the right wing rage machine for decades (Bengahziemailgate is just the latest edition) and has won most if not all her battles with this lunatic fringe.
Take a long, hard look at how the Wall Street lobby fought tooth and nail against Elizabeth Warren. What do you really think the Wall Street lobby will do to the Sanders proposal? Especially given that Sanders does not have any political muscle as seen in Nate Silver's endorsement primary - a key early predictor where Clinton has 354 and Sanders has 1
Clinton's reform is more realistic. It's the ground game of grinding out the yards. Brutal, but with an insane GOP fringe, it's the only way to get things done in D.C.
Take a long, hard look at how the Wall Street lobby fought tooth and nail against Elizabeth Warren. What do you really think the Wall Street lobby will do to the Sanders proposal? Especially given that Sanders does not have any political muscle as seen in Nate Silver's endorsement primary - a key early predictor where Clinton has 354 and Sanders has 1
Clinton's reform is more realistic. It's the ground game of grinding out the yards. Brutal, but with an insane GOP fringe, it's the only way to get things done in D.C.
5
One has to be amazed at the way NYTimes is handling criticism from Bernie Sanders' supporters. Two possible explanations for this behavior,
1) Editorial integrity : Press should not bow to popular opinion and press should write what they believe in and NYTimes strongly believes in Hillary. But editorial integrity also means writing about the policy proposals put forward by second most popular candidate in Dem primaries.
2) OR NYTimes must think that comments from Sanders' supporters is noise and it will go away if ignored.
If the answer is (2) - NYTimes is making a huge mistake.
1) Editorial integrity : Press should not bow to popular opinion and press should write what they believe in and NYTimes strongly believes in Hillary. But editorial integrity also means writing about the policy proposals put forward by second most popular candidate in Dem primaries.
2) OR NYTimes must think that comments from Sanders' supporters is noise and it will go away if ignored.
If the answer is (2) - NYTimes is making a huge mistake.
10
Hil is in a pickle, she needs the Wall St. money, but the left is driving her to the far-left that will destroy the very people she needs to pay for those ads we all love. And maybe the defense councels' bills she may encounter. Ain't life grand!
1
Hillary Clinton reforming Wall Street is like Sepp Blatter reforming FIFA.
It's hilarious!
It's hilarious!
5
If Mrs Clinton or her plan for "regulating" Wall Street in any way threatened the current status quo, you certainly wouldn't be reading about it in the corporate media. She and her plan would be consigned to the same media oblivion as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
6
I would describe Hillary Clinton's plan as "how the fox guards the hen house." Sorry, but she is the embodiment of big money, and anyone who believes otherwise should check out her political donations and bank account.
6
How am I to believe that she will crackdown on Wall Street when many of her top donors reside there?
7
If Hillary squeaks out a win next year she will likely have zero coat tails. It is probable the Republicans would retain control of both the House and Senate.
Why? Even Democrats don't trust Hillary.
Thus, the above is an excellent excuse for a Clinton Presidency to do nothing.
Check that, President Hilary will celebrate women, and womanhood on a regular basis.
In any case, it is likely Dodd-Frank is the best anyone will do until, and if, there is another major crash.
And if that happens on Obama's watch, look out below, Hillary.
Why? Even Democrats don't trust Hillary.
Thus, the above is an excellent excuse for a Clinton Presidency to do nothing.
Check that, President Hilary will celebrate women, and womanhood on a regular basis.
In any case, it is likely Dodd-Frank is the best anyone will do until, and if, there is another major crash.
And if that happens on Obama's watch, look out below, Hillary.
2
Hmmm. Hillary Clinton's "reforms" don't go as far as Bernie Sanders'.
I wonder if this has anything to do with it:
Wall Street Owns The Clintons:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/0...
Hillary Clinton's Top Contributors:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/clinton-rakes-in-wall-street-cash-amid-to...
And in fact she has defended the banksters relative to the financial crisis of
'08:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-02/hillary-clinton-le...
Like her husband, Wall Street owns Hillary Clinton. They made Bill Clinton a centimillionaire:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-b...
Is there any question but what Hillary Clinton would coddle Wall Street?
I wonder if this has anything to do with it:
Wall Street Owns The Clintons:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/0...
Hillary Clinton's Top Contributors:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/clinton-rakes-in-wall-street-cash-amid-to...
And in fact she has defended the banksters relative to the financial crisis of
'08:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-02/hillary-clinton-le...
Like her husband, Wall Street owns Hillary Clinton. They made Bill Clinton a centimillionaire:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-b...
Is there any question but what Hillary Clinton would coddle Wall Street?
8
Hillary and fixing Wall St. is an oxymoron.
2
And that, precisely, is why Wall Street is so cozy, oh so cosy with Hilary, Schumer and the rest of the 'New' Democratic Party.
3
Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary would put a leash and muzzle on Wall Street? LOL
Look at her top career donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=...
Compare to Bernie Sanders' top career donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=...
Look at her top career donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=...
Compare to Bernie Sanders' top career donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=...
3
Mrs. Clinton needs to "regulate" herself; let's start there.
2
Clinton should have used this skit on SNL it would have been funnier. A member of the liberal party with absolutely no business experience as the head of the most dysfunctional organization in the US (the US government) believing that she can better run some of the most complex organizations in the world. Now that is funny. Of course it is the belief of all socialists that socialism has continued failed throughout history not because it is a terrible form of government but primarily because they (real Clinton) was not in charge. This is truly a funny idea. Maybe Al Franken wrote this for her, he is an ex-SNL comedy writer. it really is funny. Clinton telling a business how it should be ran...or even better the US Government telling a business how it should be ran. Maybe they can work on the Post Office when they get some spare time. Funny, too funny.
Let's grant that these are fine proposals. The issue is how serious and aggressive Hillary would be to implement her proposed Wall St. regulations. Given the composition of her donor base, the Wall St banks that have paid handsomely for her and Bill's speeches and have bought into their Global fund, and the folks she considers friends, I don't think the Wall St. banks have much to fear in a Hillary administration.
2
Bernie is the genuine item.... Hillary is not.... Feel the Bern.
5
The prospects of the 2016 election terrify me. The Republican field is...well the Republican field, and that is all that needs to be said. I guess I'd like to hear more from Kaisch simply as an alternative to the other Repub wackos, but as a former Lehman executive that gives him little credibility as a Wall Street reformer. However, Hillary leading the Democratic ticket, with Bernie as a backup plan is quite scary too. There is nothing about Hillary that is trustworthy, and she's certainly part of the 'donor class' referenced here. Bernie is full of all kinds of populist sound bites and platitudes, but there is little substance to his rhetoric. His ideas make nice internet meme's and are good at getting crowds rowdy. But much of his bluster is impractical and unlikely to gain traction as real policy and legislation. And that is it...there is nobody else I've discovered any interest in. Bueller, Bueller...Bueller?
1
My problem with the Clinton plan is, this may be her plan today but, what will her plan be in a month or two or, if she is elected president? She supported DOMA before advocating for gay rights. She called the TPP the "gold standard" of trade agreements before coming out against it yesterday. She accepted heaps of money from the big bankPACS during her last campaign and this year (according to Business Insider) she has received 1.6 million from people in banking, finance, investment, money management, private equity and/or venture capital. She is either spitting in the faces of her donors or her Wall Street reform plan will disappear as soon as the spotlight is off her.
3
If Hillary Clinton is serious about regulating Wall St, perhaps she should start by refusing to take Wall St. campaign contributions.
3
Hillary Clinton is owned by Wall Street, if she were elected President no changes or plans for change would come forth from her. It's good to know she will never be President everyone knows this except her.
2
Hillary and Bill are in so deep with big money--how could she do otherwise? Does she really think the banks are going to do the right thing? Come on, sister; you're smarter than that! At least be truthful about what your expectations are from such a weak plan.
1
Why would regular folk trust anyone collecting six figures for giving speeches to the elite ? Hillary Clinton is as believable about regulating Wall Street as Jeb Bush and his million dollar no show job for Lehman brothers.
1
laughable if it wasn't so sad!
1
The money center banks are devouring America. They are indicted every quarter for some new offense, they pay billions in fines and then receive all the exemptions they need to continue onward despite being felons. Recall when it was noticed that Goldman Sachs had cornered the market in physical aluminium to the detriment of everyone who buys a can in the US; they are in businesses you cannot imagine and all financed by the zero interest rates set by the Fed, money out of the pocket of every saver and retiree in the country. In the meantime, you still pay 28% interest on your credit card debt. If you think the country is run by a small cabal of bankers and their myrmidons you are correct. This should be the No. One issue on the minds of voters in terms of who to support in the coming elections.
2
The ruling elite would welcome Hillary Clinton as their next president because she's always been cozy with them, she'd basically continue the Bush Jr./Obama policy of not breaking up "too big to fail and jail" mega banks such J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs. She would not send any of the top executives to jail and would continue to compromise and go along to get along with Wall Street just as Obama has continued to do right up to this present day.
Contrary to what Niel Irwin says about Glass-Steagall, what's known as "shadow banking", which includes at least $600 trillion (it's most likely double that) of over the counter toxic financial instruments known as derivatives, would not have caused the 2008 financial crash because under Glass-Steagall the derivatives speculation would not be saved and propped up as it had been and continues to be under Bush Jr and now Obama. The trillions of derivatives dwarfs the GDP of Europe and America's economies combined! What Iwrin is not telling you is that this casino of a financial system is hopelessly bankrupt and never be bailed out. So, it is urgent that we get Glass-Steagall back to cancel out all this illegitimate gambling debt, otherwise we're headed for another dark age.
Contrary to what Niel Irwin says about Glass-Steagall, what's known as "shadow banking", which includes at least $600 trillion (it's most likely double that) of over the counter toxic financial instruments known as derivatives, would not have caused the 2008 financial crash because under Glass-Steagall the derivatives speculation would not be saved and propped up as it had been and continues to be under Bush Jr and now Obama. The trillions of derivatives dwarfs the GDP of Europe and America's economies combined! What Iwrin is not telling you is that this casino of a financial system is hopelessly bankrupt and never be bailed out. So, it is urgent that we get Glass-Steagall back to cancel out all this illegitimate gambling debt, otherwise we're headed for another dark age.
6
It's interesting to hear how many of Bernie's most ardent supporters believe he will fund the promises he's making voters. I've been told repeatedly that he will focus on the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Nice in theory but that cat is so far out of the bag that the bag has already disintegrated.
This is not to say that I oppose the principles that Bernie so eloquently stands for. He's absolutely right that ordinary people deserve fair wages, a decent life, health care and all the other good things which used to be part of the hard-working middle class package. But is belief enough?
I live in the insurance capitol of the nation. What exactly will happen to this enormous industry if we abruptly switch to single payer? Will the economy of an entire state fall? What will happen to teachers pensions if the insurance industry abruptly just fails? So many pensions and fixed income vehicles are invested in this industry. So many people are employed by it. So many secondary businesses depend on it. What will happen to the food trucks and restaurants that feed the thousands of insurance industry workers in Hartford?
We do a lot of banking here too. What effect will massive changes in the banking industry do to the Economy of our state? What would happen if we went bankrupt?
This is not to say that I oppose the principles that Bernie so eloquently stands for. He's absolutely right that ordinary people deserve fair wages, a decent life, health care and all the other good things which used to be part of the hard-working middle class package. But is belief enough?
I live in the insurance capitol of the nation. What exactly will happen to this enormous industry if we abruptly switch to single payer? Will the economy of an entire state fall? What will happen to teachers pensions if the insurance industry abruptly just fails? So many pensions and fixed income vehicles are invested in this industry. So many people are employed by it. So many secondary businesses depend on it. What will happen to the food trucks and restaurants that feed the thousands of insurance industry workers in Hartford?
We do a lot of banking here too. What effect will massive changes in the banking industry do to the Economy of our state? What would happen if we went bankrupt?
4
Without a doubt, the health insurance industry will be devastated. But considering the value added to our nation, is that a problem? If every person in the country has a couple hundred extra dollars in their pocket every month, it would spur growth in more productive areas. If a bank fails, isn't that of their own doing, i.e. why prop up a business model dependent on risky underwriting and the extraction of wealth? That's the fundamental question here, are those industries extracting more wealth from the economy than from adding to it? The evidence appears to support that notion.
28
These arguments sound very much like those arguments proposed by all major industries facing huge changes in their business model brought on by their own actions or lack thereof, to provide a quality product or service at a fair and reasonable cost. Think legacy fossil-fuels industries such as coal, telecom industries and many others.
In the final analysis, we as a nation cannot be so concerned about what may happen to the well-paid insurance industry managers of Hartford, or the coal miners of WV, that we fail to make the appropriate choices and move directly to a sustainable business model, e.g., a single-payer Health Care system
In the final analysis, we as a nation cannot be so concerned about what may happen to the well-paid insurance industry managers of Hartford, or the coal miners of WV, that we fail to make the appropriate choices and move directly to a sustainable business model, e.g., a single-payer Health Care system
7
@Todd Fox
"I live in the insurance capitol of the nation. What exactly will happen to this enormous industry if we abruptly switch to single payer?"
I asked a Sander's supporter that exact question. The responses?
"Well why would they lose their jobs?"
"They would just get a job with the government doing the same thing."
As far as I know Bernie has not addressed this question.
"I live in the insurance capitol of the nation. What exactly will happen to this enormous industry if we abruptly switch to single payer?"
I asked a Sander's supporter that exact question. The responses?
"Well why would they lose their jobs?"
"They would just get a job with the government doing the same thing."
As far as I know Bernie has not addressed this question.
Hillary's strategy to neutralize the Sanders threat is to say "me too" on all of his progressive stances. Sanders has decades of progressive efforts to back up his platform - Hillary has weeks of "lip service" to Wall Street reform and years of coziness with Wall Street. I wonder why relevant details such as this were left out?
26
So, why didn't Bernanke make an effort to prosecute Wall Street bankers?Bernanke served two terms as chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States from 2006 to 2014. During his tenure as chairman, Bernanke oversaw the Federal Reserve's response to the late-2000s financial crisis. NOW- he suggests prosecution?
10
"Mrs. Clinton favors more intensive regulation of Wall Street than what is in place now. Bank executives and lobbyists will find little to like in her plan."
Let's be serious. Just as on the Keystone pipeline or TTP, Hillary Clinton is positioning herself where she thinks she needs now to be to cope with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. It's rather naive to be taking these policy positions at face value as the Times does. There is no reason whatsoever to think that her statements have any bearing on what she would actually do if elected. Wall Street bank executives and lobbyists surely know that about her and know she can be counted on with suitable contribution to be in their camp. And they probably got an immediate wink from Bill to be certain they understood.
Let's be serious. Just as on the Keystone pipeline or TTP, Hillary Clinton is positioning herself where she thinks she needs now to be to cope with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. It's rather naive to be taking these policy positions at face value as the Times does. There is no reason whatsoever to think that her statements have any bearing on what she would actually do if elected. Wall Street bank executives and lobbyists surely know that about her and know she can be counted on with suitable contribution to be in their camp. And they probably got an immediate wink from Bill to be certain they understood.
36
Perhaps... but then she may surprise you.
@Victor— you do realize that Biden has a stronger pro banking record than Clinton, right? Biden has always been in the side of banks and the credit card industry.
"the Glass-Steagall Act, the 1930s law... reversed during the Bill Clinton administration...had less do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest…"
Here are the words of "liberal activist" James Rickards--also a hedge fund manager.
"The oldest propaganda technique is to repeat a lie emphatically and often until it is taken for the truth.
"Something like this is going on now with regard to banks and the financial crisis.
"The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.
"From 1933 to 1999, there were very few large bank failures and no financial panics comparable to the Panic of 2008. The law worked exactly as intended.
[After the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999] "What happened over the next eight years was an almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties.
"Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and once again they sold them to their customers in the form of securities.
"The bubble peaked in 2007 and collapsed in 2008. The hard-earned knowledge of 1933 had been lost in the arrogance of 1999."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/rep...
Here are the words of "liberal activist" James Rickards--also a hedge fund manager.
"The oldest propaganda technique is to repeat a lie emphatically and often until it is taken for the truth.
"Something like this is going on now with regard to banks and the financial crisis.
"The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.
"From 1933 to 1999, there were very few large bank failures and no financial panics comparable to the Panic of 2008. The law worked exactly as intended.
[After the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999] "What happened over the next eight years was an almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties.
"Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and once again they sold them to their customers in the form of securities.
"The bubble peaked in 2007 and collapsed in 2008. The hard-earned knowledge of 1933 had been lost in the arrogance of 1999."
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/rep...
29
New regulations are all well and good. But judging from Bernanke's recent comments that some financial people deserved to be put in jail for what happened in 2008, it looks like prosecuting criminality in the financial sector is something that could be done now, without further regulations.
The questions is, why didn't and doesn't the Obama administration want to do that?
It's not so much a matter of regulations in the future as enforcement of existing laws, it would seem. When push comes to shove, I doubt that Hillary will be any harder on Wall Street than Obama was.
Bernie Sanders has made very clear what he plans to do: Break up too-big-to-fail institutions. Hillary promises new regulations, which may or may not be enforced. My vote is with the certainty of Bernie.
The questions is, why didn't and doesn't the Obama administration want to do that?
It's not so much a matter of regulations in the future as enforcement of existing laws, it would seem. When push comes to shove, I doubt that Hillary will be any harder on Wall Street than Obama was.
Bernie Sanders has made very clear what he plans to do: Break up too-big-to-fail institutions. Hillary promises new regulations, which may or may not be enforced. My vote is with the certainty of Bernie.
33
Pretty sure there's a 7 year statue of limitations on that. Convenient timing, huh?
"Wall Street" itself is not even mentioned in the article. Plenty of firms like Schwab, Fidelity, and E-Trade offer stocks and mutual funds to investors.
1
Healthcare markets: Hillary, 140 characters, $300 billion dollar gone. General markets: The Fed, one week of un-decidedness , $2 trillion gone and counting.
And now, just when the markets were starting to stabilize after the Fed's unfathomable incompetence and disastrous handling of the interest rate issue and just when a much feared 3Q earnings season is about to begin, Hillary decides that once again it is the right time to come out with a 'Hillary Grand Plan' plan that will add further pressure to the markets.
Years of hard work by small retails investors destroyed in a blink, considered collateral damage for a tandem of shameless incompetence and unscrupulous political self-interest. How much left can there possibly be left at the left side of left?
And now, just when the markets were starting to stabilize after the Fed's unfathomable incompetence and disastrous handling of the interest rate issue and just when a much feared 3Q earnings season is about to begin, Hillary decides that once again it is the right time to come out with a 'Hillary Grand Plan' plan that will add further pressure to the markets.
Years of hard work by small retails investors destroyed in a blink, considered collateral damage for a tandem of shameless incompetence and unscrupulous political self-interest. How much left can there possibly be left at the left side of left?
5
Yet allowing a right turn at the next right would be the right thing to do?
The positions of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have been converging over the last few months, however...
Hillary Clinton is taking whichever-way-the-wind-blows positions, because that's where the Democratic base has been pushing her to go.
Bernie Sanders has help consistent positions on these issues for decades, leading us toward his vision for the country.
With that in mind, who should the Democrats nominate? A leader or a follower?
Hillary Clinton is taking whichever-way-the-wind-blows positions, because that's where the Democratic base has been pushing her to go.
Bernie Sanders has help consistent positions on these issues for decades, leading us toward his vision for the country.
With that in mind, who should the Democrats nominate? A leader or a follower?
71
'With that in mind, who should the Democrats nominate? A leader or a follower?'
A winner. I'd prefer stronger stances on Wall Street, but above all, we need to keep looneys out of the White House, so we need the strongest national candidate above all, whether leader or follower. SCOTUS appointments are critical to keep religion and money from taking over our politics completely.
A winner. I'd prefer stronger stances on Wall Street, but above all, we need to keep looneys out of the White House, so we need the strongest national candidate above all, whether leader or follower. SCOTUS appointments are critical to keep religion and money from taking over our politics completely.
I admit that I am a bit naive when it comes to banking and lending in the corporate world. I did not realize the enormous fees banks skim off on big loans. Let's say an investment bank loans a business $2Billion to buy out another company. The bankers might skim off 10% commission. That's a fast $200 Million. That is unbelievable. That money comes out of the pockets of investors like pension funds and mom and pop retail investors. That commission goes into the pockets of a few ultra wealthy insiders who then lavish all sorts of possessions upon themselves like big mansions, yachts, corporate jets, multiple vacation homes. What a world.
13
Breaking up the big banks means making them less able to do business in the global economy individually, which may not be such a great idea. I think that the "Too big to fail" argument has been overused and it misrepresents the character of the problem. The reason that the banks needed taxpayers to bail them out in the Fall of 2008 was because their assets to liabilities ratio was up to 1 to 30, meaning a 4% drop in the value of the securities purchased on credit could make them insolvent. The practice amongst big banks has been to keep reserves required by governments around the world low so that the money was free to invest as they wished. The result has been that the big banks keep reserves that are proportionally far lower percentage wise than medium and small institutions regulated by F.D.I.C., and when financial crashes occur none of them have sufficient reserves to avoid insolvency and governments bail them out to avoid financial crises becoming economic collapses. Raise the proportion of reserves to cover bigger losses and the "Too big to fail" argument ceases to have merit.
8
A shockingly cogent response to a complex situation. Thank you for using the pen instead of the pitchfork. You are correct, btw, it's a global game now and we need to keep up.
1
In other words, it's the same old same old, wearing a smiley-face button.
Any credible regulatory agenda would begin with re-enacting Glass-Stegall, repealed with almost unanimous bi-partisan support, and signed off on by Pres. Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Its repeal was at the root of much of the subsequent shenanigans.
Any credible regulatory agenda would begin with re-enacting Glass-Stegall, repealed with almost unanimous bi-partisan support, and signed off on by Pres. Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. Its repeal was at the root of much of the subsequent shenanigans.
29
I'm in favor of re-enacting Glass-Steagall, but that's a misread of both its absence and efficacy.
The most heinous shenanigans, as this article makes plain, were in the shadow banking system. While the absence of Glass-Steagall may have made it easier for the megabanks to do some shady things, they weren't and aren't shadow banks.
Warren Buffet referred to the shadow banking activities as 'Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction' and he was correct. Megabanks used derivatives; the shadow banking system put derivatives on steroids.
The most heinous shenanigans, as this article makes plain, were in the shadow banking system. While the absence of Glass-Steagall may have made it easier for the megabanks to do some shady things, they weren't and aren't shadow banks.
Warren Buffet referred to the shadow banking activities as 'Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction' and he was correct. Megabanks used derivatives; the shadow banking system put derivatives on steroids.
9
Exactly. The problems were with companies like Lehman and AIG. Not with those banks focused on retail banking. There is a reflexive all financial institutions are the same mentality. There is a real difference and this is why a blanket solution is less than realistic.
Hillary Clinton is all for "socialism" and bailouts for big banks but when it comes to us all she thinks we deserve is dishonesty and falsity.
The best method of containing the "Me, Me, Me" Wall Street is to totally eliminate commissions. Everyone works on salary.
This means the ridiculous financial instruments meant for more commissions for Wall Street would no longer be necessary.
It's time for Wall Street to finance the coming American industrial revolution and stop building oversize yachts. We need both the money and talent now being wasted siphoning off wealth.
Being patriot means using America's wealth wisely. Come on Wall Street, be patriotic while gaining respect of America.
This means the ridiculous financial instruments meant for more commissions for Wall Street would no longer be necessary.
It's time for Wall Street to finance the coming American industrial revolution and stop building oversize yachts. We need both the money and talent now being wasted siphoning off wealth.
Being patriot means using America's wealth wisely. Come on Wall Street, be patriotic while gaining respect of America.
19
Ban commissions?
What is wrong with a few wealthy and lucky CEOs and Wall Street Bankers buying a fleet of mega yachts and Gulfstream 650 jets for themselves? I mean, the rest of us are too busy trying to making enough to feed our families, pay the rent and pay for college to enjoy those toys anyhow.
Bu..bu...but there’s no profit in that! And who needs respect when there’s money to be made? People respect money. Period.
Actual, real, enforceable consequences are neceessary. Jail time, stripping of ill-gotten wealth, public humiliation are needed to punish the less sociopathic of the wall street parasites.
As for the true sociopaths... put them away for a long time and make examples of them. They deserve the same type of compassion they rendered.
Actual, real, enforceable consequences are neceessary. Jail time, stripping of ill-gotten wealth, public humiliation are needed to punish the less sociopathic of the wall street parasites.
As for the true sociopaths... put them away for a long time and make examples of them. They deserve the same type of compassion they rendered.
"How Hillary Clinton Would Regulate Wall"
The Wall Street Darling will regulate Wall Street!!!
Her daughter married a Wall Street tycoon, and she is going to regulate her son-in-law!!
They paid her 700k for one hr speech and she is going to regulate Wall Street
She Pals around them in the Hamptons and Manhattan, and you telling us she is going to regulate Wall Street!
The Clintons enrich themselves from Wall Street connections -$250mil in 10 years-, and you telling us she is going to regulate Wall Street!
Does the Daily Clinton-formally NYTimes- think we are that gullible?
The Wall Street Darling will regulate Wall Street!!!
Her daughter married a Wall Street tycoon, and she is going to regulate her son-in-law!!
They paid her 700k for one hr speech and she is going to regulate Wall Street
She Pals around them in the Hamptons and Manhattan, and you telling us she is going to regulate Wall Street!
The Clintons enrich themselves from Wall Street connections -$250mil in 10 years-, and you telling us she is going to regulate Wall Street!
Does the Daily Clinton-formally NYTimes- think we are that gullible?
49
That's nothing, wait until a book comes out abut the Clinton Foundation going around the world and getting millions of dollars from foreign politicians. Just in time for the primaries.
Maybe the way to get the banks to behave is to apply civil forfeiture penalties to the individuals who make the criminal decisions..?
5
Ted : Over a six year period our former Atty. Gen., Eric Holder, and his Justice Dept. determined there was absolutely no human criminal activity attributable to the multiple financial disasters associated with the financial community . His findings were affirmed, without objection, by our President, an honored elite law school graduate and Congress which is composed predominately of attorneys . Therefore , civil forfeiture penalties won't work because there were/are NO criminals . You will need to find another way . Good luck !
We can give regulators more power to do all sorts of things, but if the political leadership tells them not to do them, or cuts their budgets to the bone, very little will get done. We've seen this over the past 35 years.
Make real laws and policies that must be carried out, that are not a matter of "judgment." Break up the banks, mandate sound financial policies and procedures.
I'm afraid that Ms. Clinton is dancin' with those what brung her. And it's obvious who's leading.
Make real laws and policies that must be carried out, that are not a matter of "judgment." Break up the banks, mandate sound financial policies and procedures.
I'm afraid that Ms. Clinton is dancin' with those what brung her. And it's obvious who's leading.
26
The Hillary campaign has become rather depressing. Is there anything she says that can be trusted now? It has become more and more evident that she is running a campaign that in the end will benefit no one else than herself, DNC establishment, and her Wall st. donors. Very very sad.
49
Hillary fix Wall Street? Hillary is the darling of Wall Street. She's "Wall Street's Pick" for goodness sake! Please.
Despite all the myths carefully nurtured and promulgated over the years, her husband's deregulation of the financial industry brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. The fact that it occurred on someone else's watch doesn't diminish his direct responsibility. In the years since, the Global Initiative has continued the Clinton's cozy relationship with Wall Street.
Anyone with a serious interest in financial reform would do best to look elsewhere. There's good reason Wall Street is putting their money behind Hillary and it ain't for reform.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/12/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-pick-2016/
http://www.thenation.com/article/bill-clinton-great-deregulator/
Despite all the myths carefully nurtured and promulgated over the years, her husband's deregulation of the financial industry brought this country to the brink of economic collapse. The fact that it occurred on someone else's watch doesn't diminish his direct responsibility. In the years since, the Global Initiative has continued the Clinton's cozy relationship with Wall Street.
Anyone with a serious interest in financial reform would do best to look elsewhere. There's good reason Wall Street is putting their money behind Hillary and it ain't for reform.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/12/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-pick-2016/
http://www.thenation.com/article/bill-clinton-great-deregulator/
64
Perhaps so but she is significantly less destructive than any of the yahoos the GOP has running. We’re picking the lesser of two evils in regards to Hillary.
Thankfully, we have Bernie Sanders.
Thankfully, we have Bernie Sanders.
...and, of course, there's Frontline's "The Warning."
Required viewing for anyone who still doesn't get it but wants to connect the dots.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Required viewing for anyone who still doesn't get it but wants to connect the dots.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
I was against the banks before I got invested in the stock market. Now, not sure. What effect would these laws have on investors? Do I want this now that I'm no longer living paycheck to paycheck?
1
To Smith:
Not to worry. Regulation, including that proposed by Sens. Warren and Sanders, benefits investors.
When you invest, you're placing a lot of faith in the intelligence and integrity of others. You're trusting them to do the right thing, both financially and ethically.
No honest banker, broker etc. is afraid of regulation. In fact, they welcome it. It keeps the scammers and schemers in check.
Lack of regulation can be devestating to average investors. Just ask the folks who trusted Bernie Madoff.
Not to worry. Regulation, including that proposed by Sens. Warren and Sanders, benefits investors.
When you invest, you're placing a lot of faith in the intelligence and integrity of others. You're trusting them to do the right thing, both financially and ethically.
No honest banker, broker etc. is afraid of regulation. In fact, they welcome it. It keeps the scammers and schemers in check.
Lack of regulation can be devestating to average investors. Just ask the folks who trusted Bernie Madoff.
37
It depends on your moral compass.
1
Anthony N is certainly right when he writes "When you invest, you're placing a lot of faith in the intelligence and integrity of others" and "Lack of regulation can be devastating to average investors". However, honest bankers have much to fear from ham-handed regulation, as the Chinese have shown. While I generally favor the re-imposition of Glass-Stegal, for example, I know enough about banking to know that its return would have to be thought through very carefully.
"...some of the [Democratic] party’s most prodigious donors come from the financial industry and don’t much care for its vilification. "
Well, BERNIE SANDERS will not be taking any money from those "prodigious" donors so I will be voting for him.
Well, BERNIE SANDERS will not be taking any money from those "prodigious" donors so I will be voting for him.
78
WalterZ - I seem to remember a great deal being made at the time that our present President's campaign chest was composed of only small dollar donations from the "common folk." I didn't believe that then and I don't believe that today any established candidate from a major party is only receiving donations from the little people.
Hillary's shifting of positions over the past few days is insulting to the intelligence of voters. Everyone knows she is an expedient politician, and this is just more proof in the pudding. The key elements of her plan as detailed here will do nothing for the working class or middle class of this country.
43
Her supporters are in denial, I just hope they would realize that they are being duped into believing she is for real.
1
Hiliary Clinton would say what she needs to, to get elected, most likely. Then..unlike Bernie Sanders who has had a very consistent voting record in favor of the rights of the many, she will do what the financiers want. It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you.
64
While the Glass-Steagall act may have lost some of its effectiveness due to other financial deregulation over time, protecting government insured commercial bank deposits from exploitation by big banks would surely have limited and possibly negated the need for a bailout.
That Clinton favors a 'nuanced' approach is no surprise. The complexity guarantees limited transparency and makes it likely that the banks will continue to game the system. The only way to guarantee that we will not have to bail out the 'too big to fail' banks is to break them up and restore the firewall between commercial and investment banking. But we need across-the-board vigorous enforcement of anti-trust law in finance, communications, pharma and technology to stop the hegemony of huge monopolistic corporate 'persons' that are consolidating their control over our economy and our politics.
The neoliberal wheeling and dealing of the Clinton's from NAFTA to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act to the Iraq war does little to suggest that HRC would provide steadfast leadership in the fight to blunt the corporate corruption that is destroying our democracy.
That Clinton favors a 'nuanced' approach is no surprise. The complexity guarantees limited transparency and makes it likely that the banks will continue to game the system. The only way to guarantee that we will not have to bail out the 'too big to fail' banks is to break them up and restore the firewall between commercial and investment banking. But we need across-the-board vigorous enforcement of anti-trust law in finance, communications, pharma and technology to stop the hegemony of huge monopolistic corporate 'persons' that are consolidating their control over our economy and our politics.
The neoliberal wheeling and dealing of the Clinton's from NAFTA to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act to the Iraq war does little to suggest that HRC would provide steadfast leadership in the fight to blunt the corporate corruption that is destroying our democracy.
18
We also must have vigorous anti-trust enforcement in the communication industry . A Democratic Republic demands an independent, widespread, diversified "Freedom of the Press" to disseminate information and disparate ideas and opinions . Currently every newspaper, magazine, TV, radio, cable, et al company is owned by one of only six huge corporations that decide - what - information you and I receive and from - their - point of view . Would any of us know how well Bernie Sanders is doing in his bid for the Presidency if we didn't excoriate the newspapers ?
We saw what happened in 2008 when the regulators were in charge. The problem is that the regulators are former Wall Street employees. Corporations can not regulate themselves.
Just one sentence: reinstall Glass-Steagall.
Just one sentence: reinstall Glass-Steagall.
55
The Clinton Wall Street plan seems to be crafted so as not to upset the hyper-sensitive feelings of the leaders in the financial industry. It does not appear to be based upon the hardships most Americans are actually facing.
What we're seeing here is a kabuki dance of policy. It's the 90's-era Clintonian Wall Street love fest, coated with a thin veneer of populism. Thankfully, the populist elements can be easily discarded shortly after the election. Risk fees and regulation? Gee, what bold edge-nibbling.
Sanders has no need to split hairs or water down the solutions that Americans both want and need. More to the point, his concern is with the middle class and the poor, who have been stomped, kicked, and robbed blind for the past thirty five years by the financial industry. Note the difference with Bernie Sanders. He is direct, specific, and forceful. That's integrity. We need it.
What we're seeing here is a kabuki dance of policy. It's the 90's-era Clintonian Wall Street love fest, coated with a thin veneer of populism. Thankfully, the populist elements can be easily discarded shortly after the election. Risk fees and regulation? Gee, what bold edge-nibbling.
Sanders has no need to split hairs or water down the solutions that Americans both want and need. More to the point, his concern is with the middle class and the poor, who have been stomped, kicked, and robbed blind for the past thirty five years by the financial industry. Note the difference with Bernie Sanders. He is direct, specific, and forceful. That's integrity. We need it.
73
Most of what the public doesn't like about Wall Street is driven by monetary policy that makes it impossible for local banks to retain local loans in their own portfolios to maturity, due to interest rate risks that threaten the solvency of banks created entirely by erratic central bank manipulations. Securitized loans became the toxic assets of the Panic of 2008.
6
"So, for example, Wells Fargo has about twice the assets of Goldman Sachs, but primarily funds itself with bank deposits and engages in relatively plain consumer and business lending. A more complex firm like Goldman, which relies more heavily on fast-moving capital markets for funding, would thus have more to fear from the risk fee."
In other words, businesses that have inherently risky habits are going to be hit more--makes a lot of sense. In particular, the rules that would govern international banking would be done with regulatory action, thus avoiding showdowns with Congress--with a largely dysfunctional Congress, it's also a good move to get things done. It's a realistic plan. I don't see the consumer and investment finance global genie going back into the bottle, so more and rigorous regulation is what will keep it in check.
In other words, businesses that have inherently risky habits are going to be hit more--makes a lot of sense. In particular, the rules that would govern international banking would be done with regulatory action, thus avoiding showdowns with Congress--with a largely dysfunctional Congress, it's also a good move to get things done. It's a realistic plan. I don't see the consumer and investment finance global genie going back into the bottle, so more and rigorous regulation is what will keep it in check.
7
She was for TPP before she was against it. How do you know anything she says is real?
46
She said she supports a TPP, but, when the terms of this TPP were made public a couple of days ago, it had some provisions in it that she could not support and so she is opposed to it in its current form.
That seems very reasonable.
That seems reasonable to me especially since one of the provisions that she opposes is the same one I am worried about and which Elizabeth Warren opposes too-- the mechanism that allows a company to sue a government claiming that the government's environmental and/or labor laws exceed the treaty and that the company is entitled to financial compensation
That seems very reasonable.
That seems reasonable to me especially since one of the provisions that she opposes is the same one I am worried about and which Elizabeth Warren opposes too-- the mechanism that allows a company to sue a government claiming that the government's environmental and/or labor laws exceed the treaty and that the company is entitled to financial compensation
5
Your news blackout on Bernie Sanders continues. I would like to hear more about his get real plan than Clinton's baby steps. Maybe after the first debate, you will begin to have some articles just about Sanders, the way you do on losing Republicans now. You are clearly in the Clinton super Pac camp.
85
I utterly do not trust Hillary Clinton to keep her word on anything. She is most definitely part of the system that Bernie wants to redefine. Her attempts to grab onto aspects of his platform are so transparent. I am not fooled.
66
And Bernie has zero chance of implementing even a quarter of the Wish List he keeps bellowing on about. Anyone who thinks differently is dangerously ignorant of how Washington or our political system works. (And, no, Bernie cannot change the system. Heck, he's been working in it for over sixteen years and hasn't done a darn thing about it!) Hillary is intelligent, experienced and pragmatic enough to know what can realistically be done and what cannot. That's why she has my vote.
7
Why can't the system be changed? Why must we accept the "legal" corruption that takes place in Washington and on Wall Street on a regular basis? It is because the system is broken that it must be changed, and Bernie Sanders may be the first step in that direction.
Ah, but he is one man in the executive office, not i in 535 congressional and house members. Things will get done, mark my words.
Sorry. Not buying it. Incentivizing the banks to do right by us little people didn't work before and it won't work again. I hope Bernie hammers home his many differences with her plan good during the debate. The American people deserve so much more than what her plan is offering. You can't serve too masters and for decades the Clintons have sat at the feet of the multi-nationals and too-big-to-fail banks. Bernie will be getting our continued donations and volunteer power.
76
Several exaggerated policy statementr that never were implemented in any form, regardless of their extension or not, fees and levies, promises that mean little to anybody outside the rivers because both parties rarely agree to the regulation noted or implied, under bush, clinton, or even her.
11
The reason Hillary Clinton will become our next President is because Wall Street is mostly comfortable with what she will, and will not, bring to the table for them. In other words, they will stake her election game, and she will be beholden to them, just like the Clinton Foundation already is. Bill Clinton wrote the playbook for this new, centrist-Democrat approach. Public-private partnerships are the centerpiece of it. Wall Street knows she has to talk tough now to appeal to the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, but most of that stuff isn't going to happen anyway. The Congressional Freedom Caucus will make certain of that.
Unless and until CEOs and others in the executive suites of major corporations start getting put in jail by the Justice Department for their screw-ups, fraud, and corporate malfeasance, nothing is going to change in how corporations and banks are run. Hillary can talk tough now, but will she put any teeth in the things she talks about? I doubt it. Her as President will still be better than Jeb Bush, but she is too big to fail just like Wall Street corporations are. It will mostly be business as usual once she is in office.
20
I would say that Bernie Sanders is far better than Hiilary or Jeb.
37
Why does no one seem to remember that the Clinton years were mostly prosperous and peaceful, despite the compromises Bill was forced to make with Republicans - you know, those very same people that Bernie would have an impossible time dealing with?
1
And what in her history would lead us to believe that she will implement even these watered-downed, vague proposals? Why vote for a shoddy, knock-off me-too candidate when the original is available?
49
Because the original does not have a snowball's chance of either getting elected, or, even if he does, getting any of his proposals through Congress.
"How Hillary Clinton would regulate Wall Street." She wouldn't. Why should she be different than any other modern pol?
28
Wall Street/Banks brought Hillary and Bill years ago.Hillary will do nothing at all to regulate Wall Street.Why would the Times even print rubbish like this?
59
Wall Street was regulated in a way but her husband with Congress repealed Glass Steagall.
And yesterday she announced her opposition to the Pacific trade deal when her husband made trade deals with Asia - like granting China MFN status.
Hmm I see a pattern here. Maybe tomorrow Mrs. Clinton will announce her support for legislation that provides support to young women who are taken advantage of by their older, male bosses.
We should beware of anyone who wants something so badly that she is willing to go 180 on everything to get it. To quote Brian Williams, "scary."
And yesterday she announced her opposition to the Pacific trade deal when her husband made trade deals with Asia - like granting China MFN status.
Hmm I see a pattern here. Maybe tomorrow Mrs. Clinton will announce her support for legislation that provides support to young women who are taken advantage of by their older, male bosses.
We should beware of anyone who wants something so badly that she is willing to go 180 on everything to get it. To quote Brian Williams, "scary."
39
When Bernie entered the race, folks said it was great because he would nudge Hillary to the left. I have no idea if that's what has happened, but now that Hillary has come forward with liberal ideas about de-regulation, Bernie's signature issue, Sanders supporters are jeering at her for filching his ideas, for playing politics (shocking!), and, of course, for outright misrepresentation. Come on guys, this is what you wanted. Enjoy it!
4
MJ wrote, “When Bernie entered the race, ‘folks’ said it was great because he would nudge Hillary to the left.”
Bernie Sanders has always said he’s in this race to win. Pushing Hillary to the left is a waste of time. Just take a look at her big money donors to see why.
The ‘folks’ that you are referring to are the know-it-all pundits who attempted to minimize Sanders’ candidacy.
Bernie Sanders has always said he’s in this race to win. Pushing Hillary to the left is a waste of time. Just take a look at her big money donors to see why.
The ‘folks’ that you are referring to are the know-it-all pundits who attempted to minimize Sanders’ candidacy.
25
it was a prediction not what his suppprters wanted.
2
Of course Bernie has said that, but one would hardly expect him to have any ability to effect any kind of change by saying anything else. "Big money donors" means little--it's a slogan. To win the White House requires extraordinary amounts of cash. To raise it, one has to approach them what's got it. Please, don't tell me about Bernie and small-money donors. To win according to this strategy would be like fighting a bear with a toothpick. Know-it-all pundits can be wrong; but that doesn't justify a know-nothing strategy, which is how I'd characterize anyone proclaiming, "Bernie or else"!
2
I would loved to have seen Ralph Nader elected in 2000 over Gore, but instead, we got Bush II. And as I read these comments I am feeling the Bern ... heart-burn.
4
Attempting to compare Bernie Sanders to Ralph Nader? Sanders is running as a DEMOCRAT and Nader ran as a third party candidate. Sanders has said he will not be a spoiler, i.e., he will not run as an independent in the general election.
There is no question that Sanders would win in a general election (with a wider margin than a corporatist Democrat like Clinton), as he would attract support from more Independents, some Republicans, and those who typically vote third party or stay home because Washington does not represent them.
There is no question that Sanders would win in a general election (with a wider margin than a corporatist Democrat like Clinton), as he would attract support from more Independents, some Republicans, and those who typically vote third party or stay home because Washington does not represent them.
35
And if people hadn't voted for Nader we would have had Al Gore. We would have avoided the Iraq war which did not further US interests. We would not have had Bush's terrible economic policies. And we would be in much better shape than we are.
I'm with you there. Bernie Sanders is the perfect candidate for those who can't stand ambiguity. I'm beginning to believe that he is also the perfect candidate for Leftists who bought into the hate-Hillary rhetoric of the Right. Now at last they have the opportunity to vent while burnishing their Leftist credentials. The best of all possible worlds! Oi vey.
What worries me about Hillary Clinton is her selection of Gene Sperling as her chief financial advisor. He is a deficit hawk and is associated with Third Way, a sort of hybrid between Democrat and Republican.
20
The presumption is that Hillary ran her new position by Citigroup ,
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley before todays release.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley before todays release.
35
I think it was probably the other way around
Hillary Clinton is Wall Street .
44
How about Clinton advocating one crucial step toward actually incentivizing the financial sector to clean up its grubby act: criminal investigations and prosecutions for executives whose firms break the law. And even short of prosecution, barring such executives from retaining positions with financial sector firms (and from sweetheart departure bonuses) if proof of responsibility falls short of demonstrating criminal culpability.
Unless individual accountability and penalties play a role, the foxes will remain in charge of the hen house and any corporate penalties will just be a cost of doing business.
Unless individual accountability and penalties play a role, the foxes will remain in charge of the hen house and any corporate penalties will just be a cost of doing business.
19
Answer: Just like how Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama has done, let them do what they want.
Anyone thinking Hillary Clinton is going to be a champion for the 99% vs Wall Street is kidding themselves.
So far, Ms. Clinton is switching positions based upon her audience. The latest switch-a-roo? Now she is against the TPP, but when she was Secretary of State she was pushing hard for it. In a nut shell is Hillary Clinton and Wall Street.
Anyone thinking Hillary Clinton is going to be a champion for the 99% vs Wall Street is kidding themselves.
So far, Ms. Clinton is switching positions based upon her audience. The latest switch-a-roo? Now she is against the TPP, but when she was Secretary of State she was pushing hard for it. In a nut shell is Hillary Clinton and Wall Street.
57
When Hillary was Secretary of State, she served at the pleasure of the president and was responsible for his international agenda.
Now that she is no longer SoS, she is free to form her own opinions based on what she knows.
The person for the TPP is Obama.
Now that she is no longer SoS, she is free to form her own opinions based on what she knows.
The person for the TPP is Obama.
1
Neil Irwin writes that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had less to do with causing the financial crisis than liberals suggest.
Granted, its repeal was not the only cause of the banking collapse. But it was indeed part and parcel of several deregulatory measures spawned by the neoliberal project, of which Bill Clinton was a main architect and enabler.
Besides the Glass-Steagall repeal, he also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated credit default swaps. He loosened lending rules via the Community Reinvestment Act, which paved the way for the subprime predatory lending epidemic and the subsequent foreclosure/fraudclosure free-for-all for which the too big to fails not only got a free pass, it made them even richer and bigger.
To be fair to Clinton, the repeal of Glass-Steagall effectively just gave retroactive immunity to Citigroup and other behemoths, who'd essentially been flouting the rules for years.
So bringing back Glass-Steagall would not be the miracle cure for what ails us. It would be far better to follow the advice of Sanders and Warren and just break up the banks as well as bringing back Glass-Steagall. Prosecuting and jailing financial crooks is also a must.
Hillary's nibbling around the edges of an oligarchy gone wild gives aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't hear Wall Street howling with pain over her tepid proposals, do you?
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
Granted, its repeal was not the only cause of the banking collapse. But it was indeed part and parcel of several deregulatory measures spawned by the neoliberal project, of which Bill Clinton was a main architect and enabler.
Besides the Glass-Steagall repeal, he also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated credit default swaps. He loosened lending rules via the Community Reinvestment Act, which paved the way for the subprime predatory lending epidemic and the subsequent foreclosure/fraudclosure free-for-all for which the too big to fails not only got a free pass, it made them even richer and bigger.
To be fair to Clinton, the repeal of Glass-Steagall effectively just gave retroactive immunity to Citigroup and other behemoths, who'd essentially been flouting the rules for years.
So bringing back Glass-Steagall would not be the miracle cure for what ails us. It would be far better to follow the advice of Sanders and Warren and just break up the banks as well as bringing back Glass-Steagall. Prosecuting and jailing financial crooks is also a must.
Hillary's nibbling around the edges of an oligarchy gone wild gives aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't hear Wall Street howling with pain over her tepid proposals, do you?
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
111
Regardless of whether you love banks or not, they compose the environment through which our economy operates. Since The Great Recession, many of the largest have become even larger, and that means much, much more Too Big to Fail. Participants in the economy move their business--and their deposits--to the Too Bigs, since they believe that, whatever happens, the Too Bigs will be their. That has to stop!
The problem is that, because of the Too Bigs regal status, they have been delving into many criminal and potentially risky transactions. But, their apparent belief seems to be: "What, me worry?"
Banks commit crimes, either of commission or omission, and the stock value drops. Shareholders suffer. And then, when the fees are assess, that comes out of the shareholders heeds, as well, again! No one goes to jail, and the executives exorbitant compensation continues. Just part of the cost of doing business, huh? Life is good!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The problem is that, because of the Too Bigs regal status, they have been delving into many criminal and potentially risky transactions. But, their apparent belief seems to be: "What, me worry?"
Banks commit crimes, either of commission or omission, and the stock value drops. Shareholders suffer. And then, when the fees are assess, that comes out of the shareholders heeds, as well, again! No one goes to jail, and the executives exorbitant compensation continues. Just part of the cost of doing business, huh? Life is good!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
12
Seven years after the meltdown, no one has talked about reining in the derivative market which was largely responsible for the failures. Why? The same reason that Greenspan and Rubin did a preventive attack on the director of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission who warned about the dangers in no uncertain terms - Wall Street is just making too much money from this practice. And no more Glass Steagall?
The politicians are just not serious about the dangers.
The politicians are just not serious about the dangers.
36
Hillary Clinton’s top donors are Wall Street banks:
1. Citigroup $824,402
2. Goldman Sachs $760,740
4. JPMorgan Chase $696,456
5. Morgan Stanley $636,564
There will be no real reform under a President Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is the president we need.
1. Citigroup $824,402
2. Goldman Sachs $760,740
4. JPMorgan Chase $696,456
5. Morgan Stanley $636,564
There will be no real reform under a President Clinton.
Bernie Sanders is the president we need.
242
For less than $3 million, these Wall Street racketeers will likely get $5 to $10 BILLION in concessions and tax credits - even more if any Republican gains the WhiteHouse. What a great return on investment - and us "little people" pay the freight.
There will be no reform that both houses of Congress do not approve. Let us not overestimate the power of the presidency!
When you think about how many millions of dollars these big banks make every day, they bought Clinton quite cheaply. That's what so sad.
She begins weak as water and will windup weaker. Her proposals are not sufficiently firm allowing for her to present herself as "not quite tough enough" to appease her donor class yet sufficient to pull enough so called moderates to her cause and lull them with "you see I'm a reasonable candidate. Meanwhile the very problem of regulation is thinned in favor of the power elites.
39
There is a lot of subtly misleading stuff to deal with, here. Glass-Steagall is not a 30's era law as the Clinton campaign, and this article, would like us to believe. It was a law on the books in 1999. Overturning it was enormously important in allowing banks to become too big to fail, from a public policy standpoint. Because of Clinton's signature, investment banks were no longer risking only their own money in the MBS derivatives casino. What Clinton also did that had more to do with the global financial crisis was to sign the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which, among other gambling-friendly things, exempted credit default swaps from regulation as insurance products. Exotic credit instruments could now be hedged at will, with no capital reserve required. That allowed the big banks to go crazy at the casino. They were, in effect, using house money and protecting themselves against loss on the side, thanks to Clinton's signatures. These are facts.
Hillary's late and intentionally-toothless proposals are impossible to trust. The 5 biggest sources of campaign finance for Clinton during her career in politics are Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and the law firm DLA Piper, whose clients include firms like Goldman Sachs. They also help banks defend themselves in fraud and white collar crime cases.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type...
Her corruption is also a fact.
Hillary's late and intentionally-toothless proposals are impossible to trust. The 5 biggest sources of campaign finance for Clinton during her career in politics are Goldman Sachs, Citibank, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and the law firm DLA Piper, whose clients include firms like Goldman Sachs. They also help banks defend themselves in fraud and white collar crime cases.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&type...
Her corruption is also a fact.
141
Thanks for these facts Joe. Add to that -
Solomon Brothers hired Mrs. Clinton's daughter out of Stanford. And the Hamptons, Mrs. Clinton's choice vacation spot - when not conducting a poll to determine where she should go - is the summer residence of many of Wall Street's senior executives. (I live there and each Fall we can't wait for the campers to go back to Manhattan.)
Solomon Brothers hired Mrs. Clinton's daughter out of Stanford. And the Hamptons, Mrs. Clinton's choice vacation spot - when not conducting a poll to determine where she should go - is the summer residence of many of Wall Street's senior executives. (I live there and each Fall we can't wait for the campers to go back to Manhattan.)
27
A more appropriate headline - "WOULD Hillary Clinton Regulate Wall Street?" As a candidate, she tries to please, but can she be trusted?
If I were a Republican, I would certainly want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate - perhaps some Democrats underestimate the number of independents who have a very very negative opinion of Ms. Clinton and her opportunistic positions?
Really! - her vote in 2002 for the Iraq intervention, when she thought it fashionable to be hawkish, eventually followed by lame apologies when hindsight made them expedient - sleazy and unfortunate.
PS I am a female New York voter, politically active, contributor to the Democratic party and have usually voted Democratic - but did not do so for Hillary's second Senate term.
If I were a Republican, I would certainly want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate - perhaps some Democrats underestimate the number of independents who have a very very negative opinion of Ms. Clinton and her opportunistic positions?
Really! - her vote in 2002 for the Iraq intervention, when she thought it fashionable to be hawkish, eventually followed by lame apologies when hindsight made them expedient - sleazy and unfortunate.
PS I am a female New York voter, politically active, contributor to the Democratic party and have usually voted Democratic - but did not do so for Hillary's second Senate term.
33
Please vote for Bernie if you truly want to see real hope and change not the Obama version.
3
I will be casting my vote for Hillary.
But I will have to vomit while doing it.
But I will have to vomit while doing it.
2
I am voting for Sanders and will feel great!
16
I keep hearing that she's going to win, which I take to mean that she does not need my vote, or by extension, yours. So vote for someone who doesn't sicken you. Isn't that what primaries are for?
4
Vote for Bernie in the primary. He is not a spoiler. If he loses then you can puke your heart out and vote for her in the general. Let's just hope he wins because nothing will change for the American people if she is elected. More jobs will be lost and the standard of living for middle class, working class and poor people in America will continue to spiral downward. We need a new FDR and Bernie is our best hope.
Too late. Markets are world-wide and subject to very little regulation at this point.All she can do is crash it.
1
Hillary is trying so hard to co-opt Bernie that pretty soon we'll be joking about her wild unkempt hair.
91
Wall Street bought Bill and Hillary Clinton a long time ago.
There will be no real change without the election of Sanders or Warren. Wish the American people would realize this would be in their best interest.
HRC - same old same old. Pocket your hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fees to Wall Street and others and go home. You're the problem, not the solution.
There will be no real change without the election of Sanders or Warren. Wish the American people would realize this would be in their best interest.
HRC - same old same old. Pocket your hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fees to Wall Street and others and go home. You're the problem, not the solution.
68
This is funny on a couple of levels.
Now we are believing what Hillary says?
Plus, there is no way she is going to regulate the hand that feeds her.
Now we are believing what Hillary says?
Plus, there is no way she is going to regulate the hand that feeds her.
66
History has shown us that Ms. Clinton will co-opt Bernie Sander's messages on any key topic so she can push him aside and claim the candidacy for which she feels entitled. Triangulation is a high art form in her world, but the reality is a lot more mundane. She gets her support and funding from Wall Street and big business just as every one of the the GOP candidates (the Donald excepted); in the end, her policies will serve those who fund her.
107
Just as Obama did in 2008 - only taking "progressive" stands after they had been staked out by Kucinich and Edwards, and proved very popular. You saw what happened afterwards. Obama wasn't in office more than a week before he started showing his true colors.
6
Fox wanted for guarding hen house. Pay commensurate with experience.
47
Clinton wants to "incentivize the biggest banks to simplify." This is of course advice coming from her son-in-law, the hedge fund manager. Crony capitalism at it's worst.
Clinton also supported incentives for the banks to modify mortgages. How did that work out for the American public? Under HAMP and HARP, banks took their government provided fee of up to $4000 per home loan modification application and still continued foreclosing on homes while distressed families were waiting to hear back from the bank on their modification application.
How will incentives work, when even penalties don't work with banks? Banks' profit from fraud and penalties are just a fraction of those profits!
Why do we only use carrots with banks and sticks with poor black children
Clinton also supported incentives for the banks to modify mortgages. How did that work out for the American public? Under HAMP and HARP, banks took their government provided fee of up to $4000 per home loan modification application and still continued foreclosing on homes while distressed families were waiting to hear back from the bank on their modification application.
How will incentives work, when even penalties don't work with banks? Banks' profit from fraud and penalties are just a fraction of those profits!
Why do we only use carrots with banks and sticks with poor black children
20
Actually we use sticks with all our poor people, regardless of color. That's how the oligarchy rolls, don't you know?
Let's not kid ourselves. Hillary Clinton works for Wall Street. She will propose things to deflect attention from the real need to rein in the oligarchs, but in the end she works for those she claims to be regulating. She will accomplish as much in terms of regulating the investment banks as she accomplished when playing point in her husband's administration on the medical care issues. Much ado about nothing.
32
Hillary is doing the "monkey see monkey do" routine. She has no intention on implementing all her proposals that would curtail her financial sponsors illegal activities. What she is doing right now is trying to get Bernie Sanders supporters to her side, which to me is a futile attempt since we already see how she is part of the corrupt system.
57
Would Hillary stop taking $ from her pals at Goldman Sachs?
32
"Her approach stops short of the wholesale financial reform favored by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Of course it does.
Of course it does.
37
I believe none of this. Hilary is in bed with corporate America.
She will say anything in order to achieve her goal of becoming president.
I, for one, am feeling really good about the Bern!
She will say anything in order to achieve her goal of becoming president.
I, for one, am feeling really good about the Bern!
125
"She will say anything in order to achieve her goal of becoming president" - all the truth in one sentence.
I'm still waiting to see an intensive discussion of why she is so obsessed, given that her record is full of mediocrity: took three tries to pass the bar; failed miserably at the responsibility Bill (why did he do that?) gave her for medical care reform; totally mediocre as a carpetbagger Senator; failed miserably at her first try for the nomination; totally mediocre as SoS; etc.; etc.
I'm still waiting to see an intensive discussion of why she is so obsessed, given that her record is full of mediocrity: took three tries to pass the bar; failed miserably at the responsibility Bill (why did he do that?) gave her for medical care reform; totally mediocre as a carpetbagger Senator; failed miserably at her first try for the nomination; totally mediocre as SoS; etc.; etc.
3
C. Richard:
Very well said!
Very well said!
He will do exactly the same. Will have no choice.
Yawn. Be sure to wake me if Mrs. Clinton ever promises to undo the destruction caused by the Bill Clinton/Robert Rubin administration.
30
My first thought is that America has incenivized the biggest banks for far too long. By the way, speaking of Sanders, Raul Grijalva, seven term senator in Arizona, respected for his advocacy for the Native American, Mexican and Spanish population, has endorsed Senator Sanders for President in 2016 ! Senator Grijalva said that he is in it with Sanders for the long haul, and I respect that because Raul Grijalva, as a progressive in Arizona, he is definitely familiar with just what "the long haul," can mean, and he doesn't take it lightly when he give his support.
22
Why would this reporter (or anyone else) think that Hillary would actually try to implement any of this? As already stated, this is just pablum for the dumb base voters.
35
Bernie is defining progressivism in 2015 America: social democracy to start this rotten apple back on the path to freshness. It's basically taking Dems back to where they were decades ago before being corrupted by money. Hillary, sadly, represents that corruption. No amount of co-opting of Bernie's positions by Hillary will save her campaign. Bernie will win. Warren will likely be his VP. The internal Republican revolution hasn't seen anything until they see what happens next November.
82
I know you are being serious, but a Sanders/Warren ticket really did make me laugh.
While I do admire both, especially Warren, this ticket stands less of a chance than Mondale/Bentsen.
While I do admire both, especially Warren, this ticket stands less of a chance than Mondale/Bentsen.
1
We have a Congress controlled by the GOP. Any progress in banking regulation is going to have to go through them. Sec. Clinton has the best chance of doing that until the Democrats can take over. But if she's shrewd and a tougher negotiator than Obama, she can make progress by using the hard liners as a threat that obstruction won't be tolerated this time. Or the banks are going to have to deal with far worse if election fortunes change for them.
4
"How Hillary Clinton Would Regulate Wall Street"
Now that's funny!
What is that old saw about never biting the hand that feeds you?
Anyway, thanks for my daily laugh.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Now that's funny!
What is that old saw about never biting the hand that feeds you?
Anyway, thanks for my daily laugh.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
76
This parenthetic on the repeal of GS cries out for some substance: (an action that had less to do with the global financial crisis than many liberal activists would suggest).
5
I don't believe that we have the political atmosphere to achieve radical change in the way that our markets run. We can achieve incremental improvement. The merit in Clinton's proposals are that they are something she has a shot at achieving.
6
Please, I beg you and the others, wake up from this fantasy that she is on your side. She is part and parcel to everything that has gone wrong for thirty years. I would love incrementalism, even what she promises, but it is all rubbish. We keep listening to these bald faced liars promise and then they go right back to being the neoliberal 1% enriching people they are. It's like thinking that hiring yet another Fortune 500 CEO to a board is somehow going to stop the spiraling upward of CEO/average worker pay ratio. This is literally insane thinking. How many election cycles do you need to go through and how far do we have to sink as a country before you accept reality?
30
That's cute that you think so, considering the list of the top 10 donors for her entire political career include: five financial-services companies(Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman Brothers (lol)), two law firms that do a lot of corporate work (DLA Piper, Skadden, Arps et al), and two media conglomerates (Time Warner, and Cablevision).
(Source: just google it. You can easily find either the raw data, or the politifact assessment which rates it as "mostly true.")
One might then argue: "But wait, that's for most of her political career since the 1980s and not this campaign!" Now think about that argument for a second. Considering how powerful her donors are, do you honestly believe that she is going to NOW bite the very large hands that feed her? The fact that Hillary has as many supporters as she does (and I'm VERY liberal, but I also understand and respect many conservative viewpoints) at this point shows that there are still people in this country who--even with the internet at their fingertips--still judge politicians by their words and not by their actions. And let's just say that Hillary's record of acting in accord with prior statements isn't exactly squeaky clean. I don't agree with Bernie Sanders on everything, but to find someone so focused and principled in an American Presidential election is a sight I didn't think I would ever see. And just the fact that he sticks up for what he believes in, whether or not I agree, ensures my vote.
(Source: just google it. You can easily find either the raw data, or the politifact assessment which rates it as "mostly true.")
One might then argue: "But wait, that's for most of her political career since the 1980s and not this campaign!" Now think about that argument for a second. Considering how powerful her donors are, do you honestly believe that she is going to NOW bite the very large hands that feed her? The fact that Hillary has as many supporters as she does (and I'm VERY liberal, but I also understand and respect many conservative viewpoints) at this point shows that there are still people in this country who--even with the internet at their fingertips--still judge politicians by their words and not by their actions. And let's just say that Hillary's record of acting in accord with prior statements isn't exactly squeaky clean. I don't agree with Bernie Sanders on everything, but to find someone so focused and principled in an American Presidential election is a sight I didn't think I would ever see. And just the fact that he sticks up for what he believes in, whether or not I agree, ensures my vote.
18
"If Mrs. Clinton is elected president and gets her way..."
Those are both big "ifs". The only way to achieve sweeping reforms is through what Bernie Sanders is calling for: "a political revolution," by which he means inspiring enough passion and excitement in Democrats and Independents to vote on election day 2016, so that the White House and Congress may shift back to a Democratic majority. This can only be accomplished if Senator Sanders is the nominee, because Secretary Clinton does not generate enough enthusiasm to inspire a record-breaking turn-out, and we will just end up with the same old gridlock or worse yet, a Republican president.
Those are both big "ifs". The only way to achieve sweeping reforms is through what Bernie Sanders is calling for: "a political revolution," by which he means inspiring enough passion and excitement in Democrats and Independents to vote on election day 2016, so that the White House and Congress may shift back to a Democratic majority. This can only be accomplished if Senator Sanders is the nominee, because Secretary Clinton does not generate enough enthusiasm to inspire a record-breaking turn-out, and we will just end up with the same old gridlock or worse yet, a Republican president.
35
Absolutely. I believe she would have a depressing effect on turnout.
5
Do the name George McGovern or Walter Mondale ring any bells?
If the Democrats couldn't elect either of these very liberal nominees, especially McGovern against Nixon, back when the country was less polarized, what makes you think that Bernie Sanders stands a chance, especially with the Tea Party controlling so much of the political discourse these days?
If the Democrats couldn't elect either of these very liberal nominees, especially McGovern against Nixon, back when the country was less polarized, what makes you think that Bernie Sanders stands a chance, especially with the Tea Party controlling so much of the political discourse these days?
1
Very useful article-- I appreciate being supplied with the detail on the Clinton plan.
BUT: why no equally detailed coverage on Sanders' proposals- which, as the Times concedes, have spurred Clinton to develop her suite of policy positions? And, for that matter, where is the analysis of the positions of other Democratic contenders?
Once again, the Times continues to disappoint with its unbalanced coverage of the Democratic race. The paper continues to commit journalistic malpractice in its duty to inform. If I wanted unalloyed coverage of Clinton, I'd visit her website.
And please advise the public editor and the senior editorial staff: this isn't an article about Sanders. It merely uses him as a foil to discuss Clinton.
BUT: why no equally detailed coverage on Sanders' proposals- which, as the Times concedes, have spurred Clinton to develop her suite of policy positions? And, for that matter, where is the analysis of the positions of other Democratic contenders?
Once again, the Times continues to disappoint with its unbalanced coverage of the Democratic race. The paper continues to commit journalistic malpractice in its duty to inform. If I wanted unalloyed coverage of Clinton, I'd visit her website.
And please advise the public editor and the senior editorial staff: this isn't an article about Sanders. It merely uses him as a foil to discuss Clinton.
233
I've grown so weary of the Sanders supporters and their non-stop complaining about his lack of coverage. And when there is coverage, then they complain about the content of the coverage.
To quote Prince: 'Maybe you're just like my mother, she's never satisfied '
To quote Prince: 'Maybe you're just like my mother, she's never satisfied '
1
Hillary is willing to move when pushed. That's why it is important to keep supporting Bernie until she moves closer to his positions.
11
It is important to elect Bernie. Because after she is elected she will move bacl. If you noitce the history. Why would you trust anything that comes out of her camp?
25
I support Bernie and will vote for him. I am not supporting him just to switch to Clinton.
19
Well, I hope you Bernie supporters do vote for her in the general election if/when she gets the nomination.
Or would you rather see Trump in the Oval Office?
Or would you rather see Trump in the Oval Office?
1
Yes, her talk about reform is not only stopping short of wholesale financial reform, it is leaving the bus full of regulators on another continent, in a ditch on the side of the road.
We should really just call this move what it is : pandering to the progressives that know all too well she will do even less than Obama on financial reform. (another phony promise pitchman that delivered an administration that on paper would be hard to distinguish from a Bush III).
She is trying the same tactic when she purports to object to the TPP, which when convenient, she had no promise endorsing. Sure, more corporatism, less democracy, she is all for it! She did nothing while in office to help stem the tide of financialization that wrecked the economy, and without wholesale reform, it will continue to do so, until it ultimately climaxes in another crisis.
She can throw out these tidy little policy reform themes all she wants, but you can count on it that she will walk back those promises the second the Wall Street money says so. She is part and parcel with her husband and all that his administration stood for in the enrichment of the elite, back when the ball got rolling (over the 99%) on the way to financialization. How anyone can think that keeping the established ruling classes entrenched is ever going to help us is literally out of their mind insane. How much deeper into banana republic status do we have to go before we wake up from this nightmare?
We should really just call this move what it is : pandering to the progressives that know all too well she will do even less than Obama on financial reform. (another phony promise pitchman that delivered an administration that on paper would be hard to distinguish from a Bush III).
She is trying the same tactic when she purports to object to the TPP, which when convenient, she had no promise endorsing. Sure, more corporatism, less democracy, she is all for it! She did nothing while in office to help stem the tide of financialization that wrecked the economy, and without wholesale reform, it will continue to do so, until it ultimately climaxes in another crisis.
She can throw out these tidy little policy reform themes all she wants, but you can count on it that she will walk back those promises the second the Wall Street money says so. She is part and parcel with her husband and all that his administration stood for in the enrichment of the elite, back when the ball got rolling (over the 99%) on the way to financialization. How anyone can think that keeping the established ruling classes entrenched is ever going to help us is literally out of their mind insane. How much deeper into banana republic status do we have to go before we wake up from this nightmare?
120
You are right! After she is elected (if at all) she will move back. If you notice the history. Why would anyone trust anything that comes out of her camp? It is important to vote for honest. consistent, logical, more human alternative. Bernie Sander is the only one that does it now.
19
Hillary Clinton's plan sounds rational and perhaps even achievable. My sympathies are with reviving Glass-Steagall and more radical reforms, but I don't see how that could be achieved even if Elizabeth Warren were President. Even if the Republicans have a bad year in 2016 they will still have a major presence in Congress. Given how many Democrats, both voters and politicians, are more middle-of-the-road than progressive, I believe Mrs. Clinton's plan should be supported as being an achievable improvement.
10
No, why woud you trust her? After history of lies?
9
The banking industry will return to its local and widely dispersed roots when monetary policy concentrates on maintaining stable yield curves and fiscal policy is used to maintain the economy at or near full employment.
4
Once elected, officials pull back because they’re afraid of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
45
Ed, those golden eggs are going to a small number of people. The gap between the rich everyone else is growing wider and wider. Fifty-eight percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of the American people. CEOs make 350 times more than the average worker.
The median wage was only $28,031 in 2013, while corporate profits are an all-time high. Median family income has gone down $5,000 since 1989. The minimum wage was increased only “three times” in the last 19 years. Most new jobs created since the recession began have been low-wage and part-time jobs.
Henry Ford paid his workers good wages so that they could afford to buy the products that they were making.
The median wage was only $28,031 in 2013, while corporate profits are an all-time high. Median family income has gone down $5,000 since 1989. The minimum wage was increased only “three times” in the last 19 years. Most new jobs created since the recession began have been low-wage and part-time jobs.
Henry Ford paid his workers good wages so that they could afford to buy the products that they were making.
31
...and that's why I'm voting for Bernie Sanders. He won't pull back, he'll steam ahead.
41
There are a lot of golden eggs in Old Field. But watch out - when Sanders is elected, he will not be "pulling back" but making sure that some of the gold will go elsewhere, even if there's less of it.
4
Jumping with both feet onto the progressive bandwagon (in an attempt to co-op Bernie's troops) the Hillary Brand® is struggling to find a voice on reigning in Wall Street and it's oligarchic control of the nation's wealth. True financial reform lurks no where in her campaign platform, but philosophical reform…now that's a refreshing change…drops from her lips like proverbial pearls of fiscal wisdom. Pearls that will keep her campaign donors happy. Pearls that will have the lustre of progressive populism. But pearls that will be worthless in the short run and void of any substance in the long. One can understand the quandary she faces…philosophical over practical. The advantage of a philosophical program of reform is the very non-existance of any actual reform, and the opportunity to change direction depending upon the vagaries of the wind. A nor'easter equates to meaningless blovating political cant (I will make those responsible pay…me). A Westerly off shore breeze means big business contributions incoming. Light winds from the southwest bring with it hints of progressive happiness until it shifts right (like her campaign logo arrow) and the dust bowl of a paucity of ideas blows sand in the faces of her supporters. Perhaps she will try to combine some type of reform in a philosopractical manner. Forcing executives at, say Goldman Sachs, to give up their reservations at Masa and donate what they would have spent to Habitat for Humanity. Philosophically speaking, of course.
80
Johndrake07, please do tell us more about "meaningless blovating political cant."
I thought Mitt Romney was the biggest flip-flopper
Uhm, could the Times at the very least acknowledge that the action was controversial and that there are legitimate arguments in support of the notion that it in fact did lead in part to the financial crisis?
Geeeeeeez.....