Wish for 2016: We Finally Get a President Who Doesn’t Kiss Wall Street’s Rear End

[n2doc]

by Charles Hugh Smith
Is there any hope that we might actually elect a president with the mandate and courage to take down Wall Street instead of kissing its rear end in humiliating obeisance?

The 2016 presidential election may be far away to those obsessed with the news cycle, but it’s not too early to express one single hope: that we finally elect a president who doesn’t kiss Wall Street’s rear end every single day for four/eight years running. It’s not difficult, folks; it’s either/or. Either the President is willing to take down Wall Street or he/she is kissing Wall Street’s rear end. There is no middle ground.

Either the next president issues an executive order (or whatever it takes) to enact these four administrative rules, or he/she is kissing Wall Street’s rear end every single day of his/her administration.

1. Every position in any tradable security or financial instrument must be held for a minimum of one minute.

2. A transaction fee payable to the U.S. Treasury will be levied on every order when placed, regardless of whether it executes or not or if it is cancelled, of all tradable securities and financial instruments, including those privately exchanged: $1 for every transaction of less than $100,000 in value, $10 for every trade over $100,000 but less than $1 million, $100 for every trade over $1 million but less than $10 million, and $1,000 for every trade over $10 million.

more

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/wish-2016-finally-get-president-doesnt-kiss-wall-streets-rear-end.html

[MohRokTah]

1. Good luck with that.

So long as big money is required to win the presidency, every president will always kiss Wall Street ass.

The game was rigged long ago. You've got a dilemma in every election. Choose the least evil, which is always the Democrat for me.

[Cryptoad]

14. Yes,,,, it is rigged

and we must learn to work within that Framework.

[mylye2222]

2. US will not have that kind of Prez

until the campaigns are financed EXCLUSIVERLY with public funding and citizen donations. But even then, as here in France our campaign are state-almost-only financed, when at power, government also keeps kissing Big Corporations.

[PeteSelman]

3. We all wish for that.

But it seems near impossible unless someone is willing to self finance to the tune of a billion dollars. Anyone with that sort of cheddar is almost certainly a Wall Street crook already and unlikely to do any of this.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Where could we find such a person?

Who could possibly take on a job like that?

I have no idea whatsoever.

[n2doc]

5. Initials E. W. would be a start. n/t

[mylye2222]

7. Elizabeth Warren?

That good new Mass.Senator?

[DonCoquixote]

23. sure as hell not someone with the initials HRC

HRC is the fix wall street wants installed.

[vanlassie]

6. I saw that. And, I concur!

[oneofthe99]

10. Obama said the same thing also , remember ?

I don't think there's a DUer that thought he would turn out as he did.
He talked the talk the first time around , the second time we all knew who he was with certain things .

I know Ms Warren has led a single hand crusade against banks and wall street but she might find out things change when you actually sit in the oval office.

I would love to see Ms Warren sit in the oval office but I will reserve my 100% support until I see how she conducts her fund raising.

[n2doc]

24. In any case many Du'ers are saying it's hopeless

Might as well just give up and join the third way……



It's….your….Destiny…..

[Timez Squarez]

8. The revolution will not be televised

but it will be on the 'Nets where billions read..

And the right-wing fucknuts don't read.


they lose.

[oneofthe99]

9. Good luck with that

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/10/as-george-clooney-throws-obama-a-40000-a-plate-party-meet-the-billionaires-opening-their-wallets/

This is not a swipe at Obama but it's just the way it is .


Multi millionaires and billionaires will always have a hand in how laws are written to benefit them.

[treestar]

11. You mean one that will ignore the other two branches

and the voters?

[rhett o rick]

12. Yeah, that's what he means. What kind of question is that? nm

[Bluenorthwest]

13. It's a nasty, insinuating act of rhetorical ill will not an actual question

nt

[jeff47]

16. Well, he is proposing things that Congress has to enact

While appearing to claim it's only the presidency that's important.

[rhett o rick]

19. You read that into what he posted? nm

[jeff47]

20. You're welcome to explain how the executive branch

can do what's in the post without any legislation. There's only so much the regulators can do without changes in laws.

[Logical]

18. LOL, I knew it was one of 4 posters and was correct! nt

[progressoid]

21. The voters? They want it too.

the survey ... found that 83% of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement, compared to 9% who said the financial world has changed its ways and doesn’t need further reform.

The survey also found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of those polled identify with the view that Wall Street must be held accountable and prevented from repeating past actions; even among Republicans, only a minority (41%) identify with the opposing view that excessive regulation will hurt the economy, the survey found.

After hearing a short description, eight in 10 voters favor the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and nearly half (49%) “strongly” favor it.

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/07/30/give-us-tougher-financial-reform-americans-say?ref=hp

[cantbeserious]

15. Good Luck With That - With Hillary Not A Chance - With Others Maybe

eom

[russspeakeasy]

17. Keep dreaming.

[struggle4progress]

22. Is there any hope that we'll ever develop an organized cadre of activists, who actually

track legislation and regulatory matters, then produce grassroots political pressure to win the outcomes they want?

I've always met plenty of whiners who do little except moan that people in power don't do what they want -- and sadly enough, I've met one in the mirror too often

Talk is cheap: if you want change, jump into the hard work of organizing it

[Jamaal510]

26. That's what I

respect about you, in particular--you're a prime example of a person getting involved directly and utilizing the country's democracy to the best of your ability. Yes, money has a presence in politics, but our government is still ultimately shaped by we the people.

[JI7]

30. it's boring

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Politicians need money. Wall Street supplies money to politicians. Guess what?

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[Exposethefrauds]

27. The Representative from Goldman Sachs is the front runner for the party nomination

according to most polls right now, what it is something like 80% of Democrats wants Hillary as the nominee.

Most not all Americans think that democrat automatically equals liberal/progressive, which as most here on DU fully understand is far removed from reality when in fact current Democratic Party leadership is not much different then the 70’s area GOP.

If Hillary is the nominee, she may or may not win and if she does I really won’t care because to me it will not matter, even for appointing SC Justices.

Sure as POTUS Hillary will protect women’s rights but what good will that right do you when you are enslaved to the corporations?
I am almost to the point now of just saying fuck it let the Pubs take over, burn the place to the ground then we can start over again, sure it will be hard for many but they have had over 30 years to prepare. Sorry if you did not prepare, you should have been paying attention as to what has been going down the last 30 years.

When the voting choice is Corporate (D) vs Corporate (R) the PEOPLE LOSE.

[krawhitham]

28. Mitt Romney is your guy, he expects Wall Street to kiss his ass

[TheKentuckian]

29. Bullshit, Romney is but a member of the royal court. Possibly only a minor nobleman.

Maybe a baron or a count.