2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy don't Hillary Fans have any problem with her being owned by Big Banks?
Seeing as how you see big banks coming out crying about a Sanders presidency, and these banks donating heavily to Hillary's campaign don't Hillary fans care that it is obvious that she works for them and not for the American people? I mean, seriously, they must know that Bernie is a genuine Progressive and does and will work for the people. He has a 40 year progressive track record. We can look at Hillary's record and it is filled with many questionable democratic positions -- many would call center-right leanings. Hillary is a proud blue dog. Even Elizabeth Warren does not have nice things to say about her, even alluding to the idea that people should support Bernie. And we all know Elizabeth Warren is a real fighter for the people -- a real progressive.
So i just fail to understand why Hillary fans are willing to vote for someone who openly admits to having no problem taking money for political influence. I thought we are suppose to elect people on the Left?
One last thing. When the tie was announced in Iowa many Hillary fans came on here saying "Hillary is the first woman to win an IA caucus". Is this what it is about? Having a woman win? Would this explain why they refuse to look at Hillary with facts?
God, if it is because of the woman issue then i wish Elizabeth Warren was running. My guess this would probably end Hillary's big dreams of a bigger payday right away (her fans would jump ship to a real progressive woman ending her primary chances early?) and we'd have 2 real progressives (Bernie and Warren) as candidates -- candidates who really do want to help the American people.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Gosh can't you go through the motions at least? Either
"That's not true. She isn't beholden to Big Banks...."
or
"Doesn't really bother me."
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)Most of the Democratic party is beholden to the banks. There's a reason. Unions were busted hard and don't have the pull or funds to compete with the corporations anymore. Bill sold out to the banks in the 90's to win the money game. Instead of fighting the corrupt money game he enabled it taking over the party again. So now we are stuck in this fucking disaster where everyone is taking money from corporations and then are passing laws that allow those corporations to fuck us all. Where the fuck have you been?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)is aort of silly.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Is this Hillary?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)No one in the suites has ever cared about fighting bigotry.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)fragile capitalist system and that Bernie represents uncertainty.
I dont share that belief, but I understand why some think that.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)remind me of women whose husbands abuse them, treat them like dirt, take their paycheck whenever they want to and go out and gamble it up etc., and all while this is happening the abused person, whoever it is, because it really doesn't have to be a woman, gender is not important has learned to live with the abuse and is afraid to fight back. There are people who will put up with anything for what they feel is security, some will allow banks to cause a periodic crash, and still support them. Some will look at how the banks gambled with derivatives and then came up with a scheme to steal property from homeowners to help pay their gambling debts and still feel these banks are needed. If you ask me, those who still feel we need to support big wall street banks are about the same as the abused boyfriend, girlfriend or spouse that has such low self esteem they feel they have to accept the treatment because the alternative would just be worse, without ever experiencing the alternative of course. 
nikto
(3,284 posts)What you said.
questionseverything
(11,952 posts)to be fair tho...the abused can leave...the entire nation/earth is being abused by the 1% and we can't get away
and the banks can punish us
even knowing that, i would rather take the beating and hope to take back some of their power
bernie for me
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)Those of us who haven't experienced the abuse say, "well why don't they just leave.".....as you said the abused can't always just leave, or at least they think they can't. Leaving a bank means a collective run on that particular bank that is threatening you. If the bank has no deposits, no patrons, is it still a bank? We, the consumer of what the banks and others have to offer have the power. We are the superhero we have been looking for, and backing senator senators IMHO is exactly what we need to do to put an arrowhead on the point of the spear. As our arrowhead, Senator Sanders will help us get to where we need to go. Thank you for your support for Senator Sanders, I also will back him in the primary and hopefully also in the general. 
questionseverything
(11,952 posts)starting over is scary even with a support system so i can't imagine it without that system
your point about banks is a good one...
i am not yet willing to think of the general without bernie
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)as though I was in any way trying to make you feel bad about your statement. I sincerely believe you were not trying to slight the abused. I was just stating a fact that many don't think about when they say things like well evidently it doesn't bother them too much. If it did they would just leave. I don't believe you will have to think of a general without Bernie, I sincerely believe he will win this primary if we all stick together and help him.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)She's owned by anyone that gives her cash.
Look at who her bundlers lobby for: weapons manufacturers, big pharma, Saudi Arabia... you name it...
Banks are just brazen enough to whine about Sanders publicly.
And it's not just her... if you haven't read this, you should:
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
"The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
"During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged the Clinton Foundation to “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad. “Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”"
"As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency."
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Banks are just the tip of the whole rotten iceberg.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)....and an haughty spirit before a fall....
If you see people that know about this and say they're progressive they're either delusional or lying.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)That don't have any at all, but they absolutely are 100% certain they are funny and appreciate humor in others.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and the denial just gets shouted louder. La, la, la, can't hear you!!!!
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)They're protecting their ego... Imagine how much good we good do if they just helped us get Bernie elected... He's a lot of things but he's no where near this corrupt or arrogant or power mad...
And we'll likely not have another chance like this for a generation.
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)With assets approaching $226 million, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation plays a prominent role in international development. It has battled HIV/AIDS, provided relief after tsunamis and earthquakes and helped farmers and entrepreneurs in developing countries.
"And we believe that together we can find solutions to the most daunting human challenges," says the narrator in a promotional video for the foundation. "This is what we do. This is who we are. This is the Clinton Foundation."
But another passage in the video oddly foreshadows a current controversy.
"We are entrepreneurs in human potential," the video says. "We reject artificial boundaries between business, government and nonprofits."
The Clinton Foundation eased those boundaries and has taken contributions, of $1 million to $10 million, from the governments of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi Arabian government has given as much as $25 million.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/03/03/390504044/clinton-foundation-funding-woes-touch-hillary-too
SammyWinstonJack
(44,317 posts)
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)We can do better.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)In other words, paying absurd payments to insurers without any guarantee of getting the actual care you need.
We, the people, are NOT her base.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)and Cognitive Dissonance. The Blue Pill. That is why.
Living is easy with eyes closed.
Uncle Joe
(65,493 posts)Thanks for the thread, studyshare.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table
think
(11,641 posts)
Hekate
(100,133 posts)...with spreading lies, half-lies, and smears?
JURY: I followed the construction of the OP's subject line and subsequent thoughts in an effort to show contrast by comparison. It's a literary device, not a personal attack.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Though we might not like how banksters and the corporate class have BOUGHT so many in government to get their way so much, we won't consider them stupid. They invest in those politicians that they know they can control, who can accurately be described as being bought!
Bribery the way it was defined at one time when it was more illegal and defined legally as a process of corruption, is the act of "buying" influence with someone. That IS the story of our political system today, and Hillary leads the way in getting bribery to do what the wealthy want.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)#1 - People who work at a bank gave her money for her campaign
#2 - She was on the speakers circuit and some of the folks who paid her to speak were banks. That was before she was a candidate.
Simple.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)They don't pay her those millions to speak. They pay her to LISTEN. To THEM. And advance their agenda in return for taking those nice fat fees.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)her horrendous policy stances.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Never the slightest hint of a substantive response, and rebuttal is literally impossible. The facts are wha the facts are and they are documented at stupefying length and detail.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The Thread about her associate and professional liar Brock: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=326291
My post:
How many sleazy folks and evil bastards working against us all for most of their careers must she ally herself with before the nausea sets in, you wake up with the same fleas, and you finally realize you are on the side of this generation's Reagans, Atwaters and their ilk? How much more money do you want her to help the bankers, hedge fund managers and corporations take, pulling the the food out of our children's mouths and the dignity from the lives of most of a struggling and increasingly poor population before you are all satisfied?
Why? Why not help your brothers and sisters rather than billionaires, liars, and thieves?
Really, WHY!
olddots
(10,237 posts)
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Our candidates can either take money from the monied interests, or lose elections.
My question of Bernie supporters is this:
Where's the Sanders/Republican minimum wage bill?
Where's the Sanders/Republican campaign finance bill?
That's what legislators do, they find a member of the opposing party and they write laws where both parties can find enough common ground to get the law past.
Even the president has to work with legislators in order to forward his/her agenda. We have a system built around compromise. Without the laws in place that Bernie is wanting, he isn't going to accomplish much. When I see republican congressmen talking about how pleased they'll be to work with the 'Sanders administration' I'll believe that he's going to accomplish something. Until then, it's just a lot of talk.
It's a presidential election, we aren't deciding who is going to rule us.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)So, that is the answer to the question in the OP.
Well, then we don't need to vote, or even have
primaries. Good to know.
Now I am relieved that it does not hurt the system,
if I should vote for Cruz & Company. Thank you!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Except on getting wars started and trade deals passed.
But rather than earning the frustration and ire of his peers in the vein of other Senate hard-liners such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sanders has managed to be respected — even liked — by much of the chamber, according to members on both sides of the aisle. The Vermont independent actually has much more in common with Sen. Tom Coburn, the now-retired “Dr. No,” whose hard-line opposition killed many bills in the Senate but also earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
Sanders also has been able to work well with his colleagues. He’s passed bipartisan legislation and forged strong relationships with members of both parties in nearly 25 years on Capitol Hill. But most of all, members say, even when Sanders is ideologically an outlier, he lets others know where he stands. He’s not the type to suddenly stab a colleague in the back. And that’s earned him respect both on and off the Hill
“A lot of people here talk about what they believe in, but they don’t act on it,” Sen. Mark Warner said. “He always acts on what he believes. “¦ We can agree or disagree, but you know where he stands.”
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Sanders himself, point to last year’s deal to improve the disastrous, scandal-ridden Veterans Affairs Department as a highlight. After weeks of negotiating with a cadre of Republican colleagues, Sanders helped pass the deal on a 91-3 vote in the Senate. “In a pretty dysfunctional Congress I helped pass, in a bipartisan way, the significant veterans bill, which increases health care to veterans and lowers waiting times, and I’m proud of that,” Sanders said. “That was a significant step forward.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway
Blanks
(4,835 posts)And that is what I'm looking for from Sanders supporters.
Of course, being a good democrat, if he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him in a heartbeat.
Is he going to single handedly do something about the minimum wage and Wall Street fat cats, campaign finance reform? I doubt it and yet, that seems to be the revolution that he's leading.
I wasn't a big Obama fan during the primaries because of the things he talked about, and while he's been a great president, it wasn't because he was doing all of the things he promised on the campaign trail, but rather his composure in the office.
Sanders talks about the things that need to be done in Washington and people seem to believe that he's going to accomplish them. If he tries any of the things he's promising they'll impeach him.
That's the unfortunate reality of our current gerrymandered country.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Hillary supporters are generally:
1. Older socially liberal Middle and Upper-Middle Class people who are comfortable with the economic status quo.
2. Women and POC who have fallen for the "Bernie is racist and sexist" propaganda and trust social justice organizations that they should have been able to trust bit have in reality been turned into organs of the Democratic Party Establishment.
3. Politics junkies who think Beltway conventional wisdom is reality.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Just to note that this is just my own personal experience of Hillary supporters here in the Fargo area.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And they really don't care what it means for the country as far as policy.
War and income inequality is of no concern to them.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Invariably Boomer women.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)approach is also embraced by some too...a hawk.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't have a problem with financial industry employees donating to candidates. Banks employ a lot of Americans, and living in NYC, I know a number of financial employees who support progressives like DeBlasio and Hillary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)To be in management is to be a dismissive reactionary. You have to be to move up in finance to any real degree.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do you?
I know a bank president. He is a total douchebag who comes into the bar and drinks himself drunk every night.
He plays the illegal poker machines in the back, refusing to play unless the bonuses are high.
He's a small-time big-game hunter, meaning that he hunts bear and elk in nearby Alaska, and he actually owned one of those Lincoln pickup trucks.
He recently won a $250,000 lottery jackpot as well. So, what you may surmise from this is that this creep is pulling down a serious salary, he is a drunk driver, he gambles in an effort to reap bonuses from other (much less affluent) people's nut in the poker machines, he shoots animals for sport and he trash talks democrats at every turn.
I'm here to tell you these things because I have observed him. He hides out in our little pub to avoid scrutiny. He's a creep.
There.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some are liberal, some not. The idea that all bankers have the same political views is silly.
MrChuck
(316 posts)hmmm, nope. No one says that all bankers have the same political views.
I'm sure that some are Republicans, in fact. Some are Clinton supporters.
Some might even be Sanders supporters but I'll leave it up to you to conjecture at which Democrat enjoys more support from bankers.
I'm also not against banks, btw. I use one and I support their business model in general.
I just don't think that they (the big banks, and that includes insurance companies because they only have their money because of big bank services) should be able to manufacture money the way they do. They invent money, that has real value and matters to the economy, and then they gamble it like it's not real. When they lose (and they lost big recently didn't they?) they need our money (more of it) to bail out and continue their reckless practices...oh, and also to donate to their policy shills in government.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)MrChuck
(316 posts)but I don't agree that it equals your own assertion.
The other poster is referring to bank policy and I agree with him. I tend to be a bit more forgiving in terms of the possibility (but not the likelihood) that some higher-ups could be progressives but I would never try to make hay with that argument. It's a little bit silly for you to be that entrenched with it, IMHO.
To have success in the financial industry one must definitely squelch progressive ideals since the industry is predicated upon creating disparity in wealth. That's factual. Money only has value because there is a zero and a negative variable that can be introduced. For a progressive to argue against that means that they need to re-examine their ideas about what the word "progressive" means. To whom are our ideals supposed to apply?
nikto
(3,284 posts)A strong GOP candidate, no doubt.
MrChuck
(316 posts)he isn't qualified to plunge a toilet in our town.
he may have been a go-getter at some point but now he's just a caricature.
actually, you're right. He'd be perfect.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You are expected to be just fine with telling dozens of people they are laid off on Christmas Eve.
Nobody who can ever do that with a clear conscience, without resigning in protest, can have any progressive values.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There are no progressives in financial management anywhere.
clerks, maybe. But you can't have any humanity and have any job in a bank above that.
You know I'm right about that.
You can't provide me any examples of anyone in any significant financial management positions who holds any progressive values(other than the safe, non-threatening ones, like being mildly pro-choice or slightly green).
Nobody in any high positions in finance ever tries to help people keep their homes, or cuts slack to lay-off victims on loan repayments, or provides small business loans in any areas that were ever redlined. It doesn't ever happen.
Of all sectors of American life, why would you ever defend anyone who is a finance executive? They're all against us.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You know how little the financial sector cares about any humane values.
It's the financial sector that keeps demanding cuts in social services, cuts in wages, reductions in environmental protections, mass layoffs.
No significant number of people in the financial sector ever challenge that agenda. None who write checks to HRC ever do. Those people all want the inequality to get even deeper.
Why waste your time defending the coldest, most soulless and most permanently unchangeable part of the American economy? The sector that does nothing but push for everything to get worse for most people?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You know they will never get their way...business types as a class never buy into the argument that a decent society should be part of the bottom line.
And HRC has never and will never challenge financial types on their support of the short-term-return-for-shareholders-at-any-cost mindset. That's why she gets bank support...because they know she'll let them go on being exactly like they are now.
Our only hope is the establishment of some sort of democratic control over investment and financial institutions, and a requirement that those institutions abandon big-short-term-return policies. Without that, nothing progressive can happen.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... that's what Sanders says!!!
mike_c
(37,130 posts)"...to Senator Clinton expect in return for their considerable financial support?" I honestly cannot believe that they expect nothing for it, or that Senator Clinton doesn't acknowledge her debt to them. If that were the case, why do they give her their treasure? Do you really think it has nothing to do with her politics, and that they expect nothing in return?
I have zero trust in big finance, big pharma, big energy, etc. Their near uniform support for Senator Clinton taints her irreparably, IMO. How can you say that she's "not owned" by them? Do you actually believe they are paying her to be their worst nightmare? Or can you acknowledge that they expect good service for their payments?
Personally, I think they expect that at the very least, Senator Clinton's picks for top treasury spots and Fed Reserve seats will be rewards for campaign contributions, in descending order of the magnitude of their support.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)mike_c
(37,130 posts)Please, let's not obfuscate the issue with misdirection. And bank tellers don't make six figure campaign donations; partners and corporate executives do. Case in point: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
Take a look at that table (and yes, it does have the disclaimer that payments were funneled via individuals and PACs). Look, I donate to Senator Sanders every month. I work for an employer. However, my donations are not linked to my employer in any way-- there isn't any tally of donations coming from individual employees of the California State University (my employer).
The donations from individual executives and PACs of major corporations and banks on that link above are identified as coming from within those organizations. It's clear that they want to own the influence they might buy in associating the donations with the organization rather than with the individuals who made them. Why do you think the table contains information like "Citigroup Inc $824,402" rather than a list of employee names and their individual contributions?
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Hill fans will make sure to come to the conclusion that Hillary is great! They don't actually care about the issue, just like Hillary doesn't care. All she cares about is getting elected and will tack whichever way necessary to get there. Her supporters are the same way. Republicans do this a lot in order to find "reasons" to support what they want, like always cutting taxes for the rich, or supporting more wars. In a lot of ways, Hillary is very much a republican.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)and corporations for considerable payment in return.
Nothing to do with hyperbole. Even H. Dean had to
admit that these are FACTS.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There are tons of folks on the speakers circuit. You pay them, they show up. Possible exception would be hate groups.
Someone wants to hear you speak, you go. That's the gig.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)about their favored candidate being buddy-buddy with the Billionaire Class. And HRH is. Brute fact.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Fucking rich.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)We will vote for the nominee? Im supporting HRC but if Sanders is the nominee I will vote for him. Do we want Trump--Rubio--Cruz in the Oval office? This election is for the fate of the planet itself, now PONDER that statement. Sure you may think some other democrat may be better but ANY democrat is better that a republican. Nothing less than our survival as a species depends on it. So quit the petty squabbling .
global1
(26,507 posts)the speeches she makes to the Banksters and Wall St. that pay her $300,000 a speech. I would think that they would want to know that she isn't playing them for fools and telling the Banksters one thing and telling them (her supporters) something different.
earthside
(6,960 posts)I would like to see the Sanders campaign and organized supporters really put some pressure on Hillary to release the transcripts of all of those speeches.
We should know what she told them, what she promised them, what her ideas are about the economy, everything.
If she is for all of us like she claims she is, if she is open and transparent, then she shouldn't have any trouble releasing her remarks to Goldman Sachs and all the other bankers and lobbyists, etc.
bec
(107 posts)is that is just how the system is. Kind of sad.
frylock
(34,825 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)Why don't you take this up with Elizabeth Warren.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-praises-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/
angrychair
(12,488 posts)Even though she is a women. Barring Hillary being there, Jeb!?! or Carley Forina would be a choice aligned with their politics.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Also don't get how minorities can support her when she helped pass the Prison Privatization Act and harmful Welfare Reform Act. Not to mention NAFTA that hurt unions and took jobs.
I just don't get it.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)eom
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)This is basically how Bill Clinton became president. After the big Reagan victory, a bunch of Democrats got together and formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) based on the idea that, "If you can't beat them, join them." Bankers and financial firms were seen as the least onerous source of campaign contributions, so they were invited to invest in electing Democrats. And it worked. It works to this day. Democratic candidates get big donations from the financial sector, and the financial sector enjoys de-facto immunity, gets bailed out when they lose too much money, and everybody is happy. Nobody owns anybody. Democrats are not obligated to loosen regulations and block reform legislation; they just do those things because they can see what good citizens are involved, and how unfair it would be to stop things like derivatives.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)The language people use to describe those they appear to literally hate leads to 0 discussion.
I like both candidates, I know that's sacrilege here.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)All that matters is (1) she is a woman, and (2) . . . well, there isn't a (2).
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Perhaps even as crooked as any Republican who does the exact same thing.
I can't imagine why, can you?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)She's raised a whole lot of money from Wall Street (for some value of "Wall Street", which always ends up being a nebulous term in these threads) for her charity and for the Democratic Party. That's not being "owned", though. In fact, this connects to the next point:
Even Elizabeth Warren does not have nice things to say about her
Elizabeth Warren does in fact have nice things to say about her, including praising her Wall Street reform plan:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/elizabeth-warren-praises-hillary-clintons-wall-street-plan/
Warren said she welcomes Clinton’s warning that Republicans are trying to use the current government spending bill to weaken regulations. The liberal Massachusetts Democrat has declined to endorse anyone in the Democratic presidential primary so far.
...
"Secretary Clinton is right to fight back against Republicans trying to sneak Wall Street giveaways into the must-pass government funding bill," Warren wrote on Facebook.
Warren, an anti-Wall Street crusader who disappointed many very liberal Democrats by refusing entreaties to run for the 2016 nomination, previously oversaw the CFPB.
Continuing...
And we all know Elizabeth Warren is a real fighter for the people -- a real progressive.
Well she's certainly spent a lot of energy persuading people of that, if not actually doing anything about "Wall Street", for whatever "Wall Street" means today. I find Warren kind of interesting, but I don't particularly trust her and don't think she's the right direction for the party.
When the tie was announced in Iowa
Iowa was, accurately, called as a victory for Clinton, because she won slightly more statewide delegates. I've found Sanders's refusal to even acknowledge that kind of irritating, but again like most of Sanders's things that irritate me I get why he's doing it, and from a tactical standpoint it probably was the right thing for him.
My guess this would probably end Hillary's big dreams of a bigger payday right away
I'm pretty sure Clinton would be taking a pay cut to become President.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)As opposed to say, pointing to the SPECIFIC votes and policies espoused by Clinton that you object to?
DonCoquixote
(13,978 posts)bring back Glass Steagall
Stop supporting HIb visas
Stop saying "assad must go" as the Russians say NO!
There specific enough?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Clinton’s plan starts with defending the comprehensive Wall Street reforms passed in the wake of the crisis—the Dodd-Frank Act. Then it takes important additional steps to curb risk in the financial industry, crack down on bad actors, and ensure that everyday investors and consumers are treated fairly. As she’s said, “We need to make sure there’s accountability on Wall Street so there can be prosperity on Main Street.”[ii]
Clinton’s plan would:
Defend Dodd-Frank against Republican attacks—so that we don’t go back to the days when Wall Street could write its own rules.
Tackle dangerous risks in the financial system—reducing both present and future threats to our financial and economic stability.
Hold both individuals and corporations accountable when they break the law or put the system at risk—protecting the integrity of our markets and upholding basic fairness.
Ensure that the financial sector serves the interests of investors and consumers, not just itself—so that everyday Americans can save and invest with confidence that they’re getting a fair shake.
Clinton understands that the strength of our markets depends on the strength of the rules that govern them. U.S. capital markets represent a national asset and offer a substantial international competitive advantage. With strong rules of the road, the financial sector can help make it possible for everyday Americans to meet their aspirations—helping young families buy a first home, allowing entrepreneurs to finance a new or expanding business, and supporting workers as they build wealth for retirement. A well-regulated financial system can facilitate the kind of responsible, long-term investment that drives broad-based economic growth.
Clinton’s plan would support this kind of investment. It builds on her record of proposing reforms that would discourage excessive risk-taking, increase fairness, enhance transparency and accountability, and curb the kinds of abuses that led to the financial crisis and the Great Recession.
As a Senator, Clinton called for:
Addressing abuses in the subprime mortgage market. Clinton called for immediate action to address abuses in the subprime mortgage market, and she laid out detailed and concrete proposals for how to do so—starting a year and a half before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.[iii]
Imposing stronger regulations on the “shadow banking” system. Clinton called on Congress to provide regulators with immediate authority to constrain the risky activities of the “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that played a leading role in causing the crisis.[iv]
Toughening regulation of risky derivatives. Clinton urged greater transparency in our complex and risky derivatives markets, an idea that Dodd-Frank eventually embraced.[v]
Cracking down on excessive executive compensation. Clinton proposed, among other things, giving shareholders an annual vote on executive compensation, strengthening clawback provisions for improperly awarded executive bonuses, and prohibiting conflicted payments to corporate compensation consultants.[vi]
Closing the carried interest loophole. Clinton called for closing the carried interest loophole, which provides a preferentially low tax rate for certain types of Wall Street income, noting that it was a “glaring inequality” that offends our values as a nation.[vii]
Defending Dodd-Frank
Five years ago, President Obama and Congress enacted the landmark Dodd-Frank Act to address the causes of the financial crisis.
Yet even as it works to protect us from a repeat of the crash, Republicans in Congress are assaulting Dodd-Frank at every turn—working to restore the same failed “light touch” approach to Wall Street that helped devastate our economy. They have slipped deregulatory provisions into must-pass bills.[viii] They have tried to hamstring the government’s authority to regulate some of our largest and riskiest financial firms.[ix] They have committed to defunding and defanging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency dedicated solely to protecting everyday Americans from unfair and deceptive financial practices.[x] And they are poised to continue these damaging efforts by pushing more of their deregulatory agenda in the upcoming budget and debt ceiling negotiations.
While Republicans profess to support small community banks, they insist on using “community banking” reform as a Trojan Horse for their attempts to roll back tough rules for the biggest banks. Clinton rejects these efforts and has instead called for commonsense reforms to unleash the potential of community banks—a backbone of lending to small farms, small businesses, and everyday American families.[xi]
In short, the Republican playbook would reverse the progress we have made since the crisis and restore the old and dangerous ways of doing business. If Republicans want to hold the American economy hostage for the benefit of their corporate patrons, that’s a fight Democrats should be ready to wage and win. As President, Clinton would stand up to Republican efforts to gut Dodd-Frank. She would veto any legislation that attempts to weaken the law and would fully enforce its protections.
New Reforms to Make the Financial System Safer and Fairer
As important an achievement as Dodd-Frank was, Clinton recognizes that the job of financial reform isn’t finished. She would fully implement Dodd-Frank’s protections and go beyond Dodd-Frank in working to combat dangerous risk-taking, hold bad actors accountable, and ensure that Wall Street serves everyday Americans. She would ensure that no institution is too big to fail or too risky to manage. And she would appoint tough, independent-minded regulators to help get the job done.
Specifically, Clinton would:
Tackle dangerous risks in the financial system.
Responsible risk-taking is a bedrock of a healthy financial system and a strong economy. But history has also taught us—from the Great Depression of the 1930s to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008—that dangerous risk-taking in the financial sector can have devastating consequences for the economy as a whole. Dodd-Frank enacted critical reforms to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street. But there is still more to do.
Tackling dangerous risk-taking in the financial sector starts with imposing tougher constraints on the biggest banks. But it also requires constraining risk beyond banks. In fact, the crisis itself demonstrated that serious risks could emerge from institutions and activities in the so-called “shadow banking” system, which often receives little prudential oversight at all. That’s why Clinton would implement a comprehensive plan to tackle excessive risk wherever it appears.
Impose a “risk fee” on the largest financial institutions. Dodd-Frank’s reforms and higher capital requirements on the largest banks are already helping address the problem of “Too Big to Fail.” But we need to go further to deal with the risk posed by size, leverage, and unstable short-term funding strategies.
Clinton would charge a graduated risk fee every year on the liabilities of banks with more than $50 billion in assets and other financial institutions that are designated by regulators for enhanced oversight. The fee rate would scale higher for firms with greater amounts of debt and riskier, short-term forms of debt—meaning that, as firms get bigger and riskier, the fee rate they face would grow in size. The fee would therefore discourage large financial institutions from relying on excessive leverage and the kinds of “hot” short-term money that proved particularly damaging during the crisis.[xii] Moreover, the strength of this deterrent would grow for firms with larger amounts of debt. The risk fee would not be applied to insured deposits and would therefore have no impact on traditional banking activities funded by insured deposits and equity capital.[xiii] In implementing the risk fee, Clinton would also call on regulators to impose higher capital requirements if she determines that such a step is a necessary complement to the fee.
Require firms that are too large and too risky to be managed effectively to reorganize, downsize, or break apart. The complexity and scope of many of the largest financial institutions can create risks for our economy by increasing both the likelihood that firms will fail and the economic damage that such failures can cause.[xiv] That’s why, as President, Clinton would pursue legislation that enhances regulators’ authorities under Dodd-Frank to ensure that no financial institution is too large and too risky to manage. Large financial firms would need to demonstrate to regulators that they can be managed effectively, with appropriate accountability across all of their activities. If firms can’t be managed effectively, regulators would have the explicit statutory authorization to require that they reorganize, downsize, or break apart. And Clinton would appoint regulators who would use both these new authorities and the substantial authorities they already have to hold firms accountable.
Strengthen oversight of the “shadow banking” system to reduce risk. Limiting excessive risk-taking by the largest banks is necessary to keep the system safe—but it’s not sufficient. As the failures of firms like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and AIG made clear—and as economists from Paul Krugman to Ben Bernanke have cautioned—dangerous financial risks can lurk outside of regulated banks—in less regulated or even unregulated entities.[xv] By one measure, the so-called “shadow banking” sector—which includes certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks, and other non-bank financial companies—makes up a quarter of the global financial system.[xvi] Nonbank lenders originated 40 percent of new mortgages by dollar volume in 2014, compared to 12 percent in 2010.[xvii] And the IMF recently warned that “risks are elevated” in the United States’ non-bank financial system.[xviii] Clinton believes we need more transparency in the shadow banking sector, a better understanding of the risks it poses, and stronger tools to tackle those risks. Specifically, she would:
Impose, in coordination with other major international financial centers, margin and collateral requirements on repurchase agreements and other securities financing transactions—risky forms of short-term borrowing that played a key role in the onset of the financial crisis—in order to limit the build-up of excessive leverage in the shadow banking system[xix];
Enhance public disclosure requirements for repurchase agreements, so that both regulators and market participants can more fully understand the risks associated with these activities[xx];
Strengthen leverage restrictions and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers, which played a key role in the recent crisis[xxi];
Enhance regulatory reporting requirements for hedge funds and private equity firms—improving upon Dodd-Frank’s “Form PF” so that it more fully captures the risk exposures of these private investment funds[xxii];
Review recent regulatory changes to the money market fund industry, which suffered a massive and destabilizing run after the failure of Lehman Brothers that was quelled only by a taxpayer guarantee,[xxiii] to ensure that the new rules are adequately addressing the risks that money market funds pose to their investors and the economy[xxiv];
Enhance transparency requirements and disclosure for exchange-traded products so that underlying liquidity, leverage, and market risks can be assessed;
Strengthen the tools and authorities of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to tackle risks in the shadow banking system—wherever those activities may migrate or emerge.[xxv]
Impose a high-frequency trading tax and reform the rules that govern our stock markets. The growth of high-frequency trading (HFT) has unnecessarily burdened our markets and enabled unfair and abusive trading strategies that often capitalize on a “two-tiered” market structure with obsolete rules. That’s why Clinton would impose a tax targeted specifically at harmful HFT. In particular, the tax would hit HFT strategies involving excessive levels of order cancellations, which make our markets less stable and less fair.
Clinton would also reform our stock market rules to ensure equal access to markets and information, increase transparency, and minimize conflicts of interest. Over the last decade, equity markets have become less transparent—often serving the interests of high-frequency traders and “dark pool” operators at the expense of the investing public. Clinton is calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pursue reforms that ensure that these markets are putting the interests of the investing public and corporate issuers before those of high-frequency traders and financial firms.
Create compensation rules to curb behavior that puts our financial system at risk. Clinton believes that compensation arrangements at large financial institutions must discourage the types of excessive risk-taking that can threaten the stability of our economy. She would enforce Dodd-Frank to require that a large bank’s senior management and material risk-takers defer a meaningful portion of their annual compensation to future years, such that they would lose some or all of that compensation if the bank suffers losses that threaten its financial health. The rule would apply beyond insured banks to include systemically important non-bank financial firms.[xxvi]
Strengthen the Volcker Rule to reduce risk. The Dodd-Frank Act’s Volcker Rule put into practice a straightforward and common-sense principle: banks shouldn’t be allowed to make risky and speculative trading bets with taxpayer-backed money. But, as ultimately enacted by Congress, the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on these risky trading activities contained a damaging loophole: it allowed firms to invest up to three percent of their capital in hedge funds that can themselves make risky trading bets.[xxvii] This loophole allows the largest institutions to risk billions on exactly the types of speculative trading activities that the Volcker Rule is meant to prohibit. Moreover, banks are already structuring their activities to avoid the Volcker Rule’s restrictions. Clinton would close the Volcker Rule’s hedge fund loophole. She would fully enforce the Volcker Rule, in a manner that stays true to its underlying goals—ensuring that banks can’t avoid its prohibitions on risky activities by using evasive business structures. And she would reinstate the “swaps push-out” rule for banks’ derivatives trading, which was repealed at the behest of the banking lobby in last year’s budget deal.[xxviii]
Enhance transparency in the banking system. Transparency in the financial system can reduce the build-up of risk during periods of stability and diminish “contagion” effects during periods of crisis. But the SEC’s guidance for banking organization disclosure has not been materially updated in decades, and therefore does not properly account for the complexities of modern banking.[xxix] Clinton would ask the SEC, Treasury Department, and the three federal banking agencies to coordinate to enhance and simplify public disclosure requirements for the banking industry. The largest firms should have to disclose much more information to the market. And the smallest banks should be relieved of the heavy regulatory burden of excess paperwork cataloguing activities that they do not engage in at a meaningful level.[xxx]
Enhance international cooperation to curb excessive risk-taking. Clinton understands that strengthening constraints on excessive risk-taking within our own borders is not enough: as home to the world’s strongest and most sophisticated financial markets, we need to push for strong financial regulations in major financial centers around the world—leveling the playing field for U.S. firms and safeguarding global stability. For example, Clinton’s administration would fight for stronger global capital requirements and tougher margin and collateral requirements for securities financing and derivatives transactions. Clinton would also work to put in place tough global rules for winding down large and internationally active financial institutions when their failure poses a risk to the global financial system. As a former secretary of state, Clinton has the know-how to work with international partners to make progress on critical economic issues. As president, she would deploy that know-how to make the international financial system stronger and more secure.
Bolster the financial system’s defenses against the threat of cyber attacks. In recent years, major cyber attacks have compromised the personal and financial information of millions of consumers.[xxxi] But Clinton understands that lapses in cyber security don’t only affect consumers—they also have the potential to threaten the stability of the financial system and the economy as a whole. That’s why Clinton would encourage regulators to consider cyber-preparedness as a significant part of their assessments of financial institutions. She would also seek to strengthen the sharing of timely cyber threat information between the government and the private sector,[xxxii] promote the integration of better security practices into agreements with third-party vendors,[xxxiii] and focus on rapid detection and response to limit the damage of breaches that do occur.[xxxiv]
Hold both individuals and corporations accountable when they break the law.
Both before and after the financial crisis, there have been clear-cut examples of law-breaking in the financial sector—from conspiring to manipulate foreign exchange markets to facilitating money laundering to perpetrating fraud. As Clinton has said, “stories of misconduct in the financial industry are shocking” and cannot be tolerated.[xxxv] Yet too often, both the corporations and individuals responsible are getting off without sufficient penalty.[xxxvi] Imposing accountability on Wall Street will help protect the integrity of our markets so that they’re serving everyday Americans—and so that law-abiding individuals, who make up the vast majority of people working in finance, can compete on a level playing field.
That’s why Clinton would ensure that both individuals and corporations are held accountable when they break the law. And she would see to it that prosecutors and regulators have the tools and resources they need to get the job done.
Ensure that individuals are held accountable when they break the law. Banks and other financial firms have paid large fines for financial misconduct, totaling roughly $200 billion globally since the financial crisis.[xxxvii] But too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible for corporate wrongdoing get off with limited consequences, or none at all. One recent study found that in roughly two-thirds of corporate criminal settlements between 2001 and 2014, no individuals were charged.[xxxviii]
Emphasize individual accountability when prosecuting corporate wrongdoing. Clinton believes that the best way to deter corporate wrongdoing is to hold individuals accountable for their misconduct. She would enforce our laws against the individuals who break them—plain and simple. That includes holding corporate officers and supervisors accountable when they knew about misconduct by their subordinates and failed to prevent it or stop it. When people commit crimes on Wall Street, they will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Ensure that fines for major corporate wrongdoing hit the bonuses of culpable executives, supervisors, and employees—and that senior executives have their jobs on the line when egregious misconduct takes place on their watch. When a financial institution pays a large fine for illegal behavior, culpable executives, supervisors, and employees should bear some of the cost—not just shareholders and customers. That’s why Clinton would require that large financial institutions pay for a portion of major civil or criminal fines from the incentive-based pay of culpable employees, their supervisors, and the relevant senior executives of the firm—anyone who was responsible for or should have caught the problem.[xxxix] Moreover, she would empower regulators to require that senior executives leave their jobs when particularly egregious misconduct takes place under their supervision. Her bottom line is simple: supervisors and senior executives should be held accountable when wrongdoing happens on their watch.
Prohibit individuals in financial services who are convicted of egregious crimes from future employment in the industry. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act currently prevents depository institutions and bank holding companies from employing anyone who has been convicted of a crime of dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering.[xl] Similar employment bars also apply under our securities laws—barring, for example, investment companies from employing individuals previously convicted of a felony or misdemeanor while working in certain professions.[xli] Clinton would unify and expand these provisions. Specifically, she would ensure that serious crimes under securities, commodities, consumer, and banking laws would result in employment bars across the entire financial services industry.[xlii]
Extend the statute of limitations for major financial fraud. Financial fraud can take years to unearth, and prosecuting financial fraud can be time-intensive and complex—particularly when targeting high-level executives at large companies. And yet the current statutes of limitations for enforcing our laws against fraud, which generally last just five or six years,[xliii] are too often insufficient to account for the time-intensive nature of these prosecutions.[xliv] In fact, prosecutors have recently been forced to adopt novel legal theories, with mixed success, after time has run out on conventional fraud statutes.[xlv] Clinton believes that individuals who commit major financial frauds shouldn’t go free simply because prosecutors have insufficient time to hold them to account. That’s why she would extend the statute of limitations to 10 years for major financial fraud.
Hold individuals accountable when they commit insider trading. In response to a recent federal court ruling that upended long-standing enforcement practice, Clinton would propose legislation to clarify that insider trading prosecutions do not require knowledge that the source disclosed the inside information for personal benefit and to clarify what “personal benefit” means.[xlvi]
Ensure that corporations are held accountable when they break the law. Even as we renew our focus on individual accountability, we need to work to maximize the effectiveness of criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions against corporations. Firms shouldn’t treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, and we need to put an end to the patterns of recidivism we see in some institutions today.
Curtail the overuse of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements. Under deferred prosecution (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), prosecutors defer or even stop pursuing charges against an individual or corporation in exchange for a commitment by the offending party to take specified compliance actions and cooperate with the government. While these agreements were originally designed for low-level crimes and for individuals cooperating in the prosecution of more culpable individuals, they have since become the predominant tool in the government’s corporate criminal enforcement efforts.[xlvii] DPAs and NPAs should not be the norm; they should be used in limited circumstances, when there are good reasons for using them. And they should not be used in egregious cases of corporate crime.
Establish prosecutorial guidelines for deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements to enhance transparency and accountability. The DOJ has issued no guidelines governing when and how DPAs and NPAs should be used, even as these settlement agreements have increased in prevalence. The Department should issue guidelines that:
Make clear that DPAs and NPAs should be used in only limited circumstances;
Outline the circumstances in which DPAs and NPAs may be considered, as well as the categories of criminal activity that cannot generally be resolved by such agreements;
Require public disclosure of DPAs and NPAs, so the public knows both when prosecutors are entering such agreements and what’s in them;
Ensure that DPAs and NPAs impose fines that are significant enough to deter illegal activity, so that firms do not have an incentive to break the law.
Require that firms admit wrongdoing and the underlying facts as a condition of settlement agreements. Firms should be required to admit wrongdoing and the underlying facts in instances of egregious wrongdoing. Doing so will ensure that firms take full and complete responsibility for their misconduct.[xlviii]
Bolster transparency for corporate settlements. Firms that negotiate settlements with government regulators often end up paying significantly less than publicly stated because of tax deductions and other credits that reduce these settlements’ true value. Moreover, key details of these settlements are often kept confidential, so the public has no ability to evaluate the fairness of the terms. Clinton supports shining light on these agreements through the bipartisan Truth in Settlements Act, introduced by Senators Warren and Lankford. This bill would allow the public to hold regulators accountable for the settlements they negotiate by requiring detailed and accessible public disclosure of settlement terms, including any tax offsets, as well as public justification when settlements are kept confidential.[xlix]
Restrict SEC waivers when companies engage in repeated egregious conduct. Under current law, when companies engage in bad conduct, they are supposed to lose important benefits of the securities law—such as the ability for large firms to issue stocks and bonds using streamlined registration. But the SEC has consistently waived such consequences for large financial firms that have repeatedly broken the law, passing up critical opportunities to reduce recidivism and deter future misconduct. Clinton would curtail the use of these waivers in cases of egregious or repeated law-breaking and misconduct.
Ensure that prosecutors and regulators have the tools and resources they need to hold both individuals and corporations accountable for financial wrongdoing.
Give prosecutors the resources they need to punish law-breakers. Right now, our efforts to investigate and prosecute financial crimes are under-resourced.[l] For example, after the financial crisis in 2008, Congress authorized an additional $310 million to help key divisions of the DOJ pursue financial fraud in 2010 and 2011—but ultimately appropriated only $55 million for the effort.
Strengthen the independence of the SEC and CFTC. Republicans and banking lobbyists have shown they are committed to using the appropriations process to compromise the SEC and CFTC’s core functions, even as they committed themselves to repeated attempts at defunding and defanging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). And yet these regulators are already grossly underfunded: the CFTC, for example, has a budget of roughly $200 million[liv] and is tasked with policing a derivatives market of over $400 trillion[lv]—or 2 million times larger than its annual budget. Clinton would make funding for the SEC and CFTC independent of annual appropriations in Congress—just like funding for all the other financial regulators—so that they can carry out their important missions without undue and inappropriate political interference.[lvi]
Increase maximum penalties for SEC and CFTC enforcement actions. The penalties that the SEC and CFTC are authorized to levy on those who break the law are insufficient to hold those guilty of misconduct accountable and deter future misconduct. For example, the maximum penalty the CFTC can levy for most infractions is $140,000—barely a blip on a Wall Street balance sheet.[lvii] SEC penalties are capped at $150,000 per violation for individuals and $725,000 per violation for corporations.[lviii] These provisions need to be brought into the real world, through legislation that substantially increases these maximums—so that penalties can fully reflect the extent of the harm caused.[lix]
Reward whistleblowers for bringing illicit activity into the light of day. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, enacted in 1989, provides rewards for whistleblowers—an important prosecutorial tool.[lx] But these rewards are capped too low. They are far lower than whistleblower rewards offered under comparable anti-fraud statutes and may be insufficient to create the strong incentives for whistleblowing we need in the financial sector. Clinton would raise the cap to encourage more whistleblowing.[lxi]
Fight to protect investors and consumers.
Dodd-Frank took crucial steps to protect consumers and investors from unfair and deceptive practices, most importantly by creating the CFPB. But much work remains to be done. Tens of millions of Americans have errors on their credit reports that make it more difficult to buy a home or land a job.[lxii] Too many are harassed by debt collectors for medical bills that they thought they already paid.[lxiii] Billions of dollars are drained from Americans’ bank accounts every year because of shady overdraft practices.[lxiv] And billions more are drained from retirement accounts because of high fees and conflicts of interest in the investment management industry.[lxv] Clinton would fight to protect honest and hardworking Americans from unfair and deceptive practices in the financial industry that are holding them back—and she will lay out specific proposals for doing so over the course of this campaign.
We have to encourage Wall Street to live up to its proper role in our economy—helping Main Street grow and prosper. With strong rules of the road and smart incentives, the financial industry can help more young families buy that first home, make it possible for entrepreneurs to create new small businesses, and support hard-working Americans saving for retirement. Clinton’s plan will help us unlock that potential. She’ll work to create good-paying jobs, raise incomes, and help families afford a middle class life, with less speculation and more growth—growth that’s strong, fair, and long-term. That’s what Hillary Clinton is fighting for in this campaign and that’s what she’ll do as President.
You're welcome to believe GS is the -ONLY- solution; Hillary Clinton believes otherwise.
As for the other items, what do they have to do with "Big Banks"?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
:stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I know why.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)It's only 1 of MANY, MANY reasons why I don't take anything from either group seriously.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)As such, I am grounded in reality and not 'wooed' by celebrity. There are things about politicians I support with which I completely connect. And there are things about them with which I do not.
The candidate with whom I most closely connect is Russ Feingold. However, I am actually glad he's not running for POTUS because he's likely going to be getting his Senate seat back.
I can see that Bernie is to many of you what Russ is to me. I get it. It must be super exciting. Run with it, but please stop trying to act like us Hillary backers are ignorant or warhawks or meth addicts. It's getting ridiculous.
Yeah, Clinton supporters were fucking proud of the fact that Hillary is the first woman to win an IA caucus because it's a milestone. One we should all be proud of.
The implication that supporters only back Clinton because she's a woman is old and tired. Here's a response to that which I will borrow: http://www.pajiba.com/politics/an-allcaps-explosion-of-feelings-regarding-the-liberal-backlash-against-hillary-clinton.php
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)
Beacool
(30,524 posts)