2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton's Take on Banks Won't Hold Up (Taibbi)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-take-on-banks-wont-hold-up-20151014A few observations:
First, it's definitive now that Hillary has no intention of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Cooper gave her a prime opportunity Tuesday night to announce otherwise, stories have filtered out of her campaign that she has no plans along those lines, and she's explicitly stated that she wants to find a "different way" to reduce risk.
The second and probably more important observation is about Hillary's rhetorical choices.
Hillary, like her close advisor Barney Frank, has been pushing an idea that banks aren't at the root of any financial instability problem. Last night, she pointed a finger instead at "shadow banking," non-bank actors like AIG, and a dead investment bank in Lehman Brothers. (Interesting she didn't mention a still-viable investment bank like Goldman, Sachs, which has hosted her expensive speaking engagements.)
more at link
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)People want jobs, not financial chaos and uncertainty.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)With the re-introduction of Glass-Steagall banks will have to eliminate many of the the risky investment exposure to securities and derivatives and get back to the old business of banking and lending. That makes the banking sector much more stable and that certainly reduces the chance of financial chaos. Of course rational arguments don't work toward Hillary's candidacy given her past voting record. And as for jobs, if Hillary gets elected you can bet the ranch she will welch on her recent negative position on TPP and sign it....and there goes a few million more good paying jobs.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)thesquanderer
(12,277 posts)but that wouldn't necessarily mean that reinstating glass-steagal is not a good idea as well.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Whom Glass-Steagall would have had no effect. Among many other financial institutions.
Response to JaneyVee (Reply #1)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Taibbi is opinionated, but he's also a helluva reporter and backs his stuff up with research and knpowledge.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)... As recently as May 6th, anyway....
Business Insider interview of Joe Stiglitz on the issue of wealth inequality:
JS: As far as I know, all three of the announced Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders, Hilary Clinton and has [Martin] OMalley announced? Theyve all actually announced that theyre very concerned about the issue. And they have begun to roll out agendas. Bernie Sanders is the most progressive and has been most articulate over a longer period of time, laying out a pro-equality agenda. I think everybody hopes that the pressure is being put on Hillary to match.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nobel-laureate-joseph-stiglitz-2015-4?r=UK&IR=T
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that quote (at least the excerpt you clipped) isn't talking about banking.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in a discussion string about banking, that starts with:
Implication being ... the poster would take Krugman and Stiglitz over Taibbi on the topic Taibbi wrote about.
and, continues:
Implication being Stiglitz or Ktugman being critical of HRC on the topic Taibbi wrote about.
To which you respond:
My comment assumed that you, as most people, include banking in that economic plan. Stiglitz has NOT been critical of HRC's banking plan. If I was mistaken that you were talking about what others were talking about, please forgive me.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)it's about retaining 3rd Way's iron-fisted control of the Democratic Party, which was
pretty much ushered in by Big Dawg. God forbid that the Democratic Party would
be run by people who want to represent workers, the poor and racial minorities again,
rather than of the Oligarchy
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DanTex
(20,709 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In an exchange were HRC are being insulted (being called PUMAs) ... a third party enters and states it's really the Bernie supporters who are the PUMAs ... " Why are you insulting Bernie supporters?!!!! "
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)speak for everyone, but I am policy driven. I have no emotional attachment to a candidate. I am very invested in FOR style policies. HRC supporters seem to not care about policies or ethics. All that matters is Hillary wins damn her Wall Street, Big Pharma, Fossil fuel industry, MIC, PIC history none of that matters.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)are Bernie supporters.
Since you brought it up: will you vote for the Democratic nominee if it's not Bernie?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)candidate. She's horrible but she will have my vote.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You're funny Dan considering many Bernie supporters don't belong to ANY party. That whole (I) thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The vast majority of those supporting Bernie would have shouted mightily at the suggest of them NOT being of the Democratic Party.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Because myself and many others have always shouted we're NOT of the Dem party and continue to do so. Nor do we wish to and the whole DNC with Debbie is just one reason why.
We're the largest voting block in America and most of us are liberals, who left of the Dem establishment.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I must be from that begotten era where DEMOCRATICundergrounders were Democrats seeking to "work together to elect more Democrats."
My bad. While that explains a lot ... Please proceed.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Hell, Bernie gets the vote from something like 21% of Republicans in Vermont, where they
know and trust him.
krkaufman
(13,677 posts)Wow, thanks for that message clearing-up what the previous poster meant. Their message was so subtle I'm not sure anyone would have figured it out had you not provided the Cliff Notes.
When whining about PUMA, consider what many candidates and their supporters see as the DNC disregarding any consideration of "party" in favor of a process favoring a single candidate.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Markers were laid down in the first debate. Later debates will see them called in.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)Of course the big banks were the problem. They were too big to fail. They received trillion of dollars in bailout funds, zero interest rate loans, and quantitative easing. The banks consolidated and are even bigger now.
davemac
(28 posts)Sadly, with the level of commentators like Cooper, there is no chance of challenging falsehoods by corporate-chosen politicians. RIP critical thinking.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)subsidiary...
Yeah... she'll fix 'em, alright.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Get in on the action now. Buy stocks of big banks, even if its just a few. Hillary will make us rich (unless you don't have the money to buy stocks, in which case she thinks you just didn't work hard enough)
azmom
(5,208 posts)Maineman
(854 posts)"work with" (get funded by) big money when she ran for Senate. Bill found out where the money was when he was president. He helped "reform" banking rules. No way can I vote for Hillary. I have tried voting for the one I thought could win -- a defensive strategy, but I am mostly done with that. I am voting for the person I think would try to solve the most important problems. So, the question is, What are this country's most important, most basic problems? I say Bernie is the one who is zeroing in on them. Secondly, I will vote for integrity. Clearly that is people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, maybe Joe Biden, but not Hillary.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The merging of all those starting points....Those remaining lines are way too concentrated and the institutions they represent are way too big. Period.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/bank-merger-history
jwirr
(39,215 posts)have 3 huge banks and they are gambling with our money because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I wish people would learn at least this one fact.
krkaufman
(13,677 posts)Just re-read Hillary's extensive enemies list from the debate, when only asked for one, and note whom she didn't mention... Wall Street.