Can Hillary Clinton Be Trusted to Regulate the Banks That Made Her Rich?

[marmar]

Published on Jan 21, 2016

Former regulator Bill Black and Public Banking Institute founder Ellen Brown say Hillary's track record gives no indication that she will fulfill any promise in her 2016 campaign to implement regulations on Wall Street

[cali]

1. No. Next question?

[draa]

2. Her husband was directly responsible for 2008 so NO.

Bill Clinton's greed added to the incompetence of George W Bush was a match made it hell. And $22T later we see just how bad it really was.

[Ferd Berfel]

3. No because... History

They sold the Democratic Party to the Corporatist Oligarchs Decades ago. But We're just supposed to forget that.

Do you think that this (below) had ANYTHING to do with: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Telecommunications Act, ending welfare as we knew it, Glass-Stegall, etc, etc, up to, and including TPP?


The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC

... the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council. Welcome fellow Democrat! ...

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations. As for the rightwing, journalists such as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons uncovered that the "vast right wing conspiracy" -- or the New Right network of think tanks, media outlets and pressure groups -- was marshalled under rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife for his Get-Clinton campaign. Prior to the work of Conason and Lyons, Russ Bellant extensively documented in "The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -

[antigop]

4. no. nt

[tokenlib]

5. Simple, short and to the point..not a chance...

The Hillary supporters still cannot offer anything to counter her Wall Street coddling...

[restorefreedom]

6. i'd like to answer that with an image...

[beam me up scottie]

7. Nice! But shouldn't the fox be telling the other foxes to cut it out?

[restorefreedom]

9. why, yes it should. wish i knew how to photoshop! nt

[Duckhunter935]

8. no

[peacebird]

10. No, not at all.

[Orsino]

11. No. But the problem is trust itself.

Strong regulation should be in place because we don't, or shouldn't, trust anyone with our livelihoods and lives. We'very got to watch them, and watch the watchers, too, with a Constitution that watches us, preventing us from getting lazy and signing away power.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. No.

[FlatBaroque]

13. fuck no

[ViseGrip]

14. of course not

[Hoyt]

15. Elizabeth Warren praises Clinton's plan. I guess she is now persona non grata here.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/07/elizabeth_warren_endorses_hillary_clintons_proposed_new_wall_street_regulations/

[ejbr]

17. Her "plan"

is like a New Year's Resolution. She may, emphasis on may, want to go through with it, but will she? And many now understand that Senator Warren's praise is not only sincere, but may be a means to hold Hillary's feet to the fire as maybe even she doesn't believe Hillary will fulfill her plan. So, yes, we still love us some Elizabeth Warren!

[Hoyt]

19. Until she's Prez we don't know. And it's only conjecture that Sanders can't get his

plans for this or Healthcare enacted by this Congress.

Whatever, Warren seems to approve.

[ejbr]

21. The point of this OP, however,

is which candidate is sincere in her/his efforts to enact her/his plans. Maybe Bernie can't accomplish what he wants, but we are quite certain he will try.

[Hoyt]

26. I think she is very sincere. Sanders is too, but that sincerity won't get him very far with Congress

I believe Clinton can get more done than Sanders. Sorry.

[ejbr]

27. Don't be sorry...

just explain how she can get more done with Republicans who hate her more than Obama.

[Hoyt]

30. She'll compromise if needed to get things done. Sanders will wave his arms around, play to his base

but get nothing. "Compromise" may be a dirty word to some, but it's better than getting nothing.

Even FDR compromised to get Social Security and Johnson compromised on Medicare.

The GOPers will hate Sanders even more than Clinton if he becomes the nominee.

[ejbr]

31. Is that why he has more

co-sponsored bills with them than any other Congress critter? He has done quite well comprising with the Republicans. And this is not just wishful thinking as you are presenting for Clinton. This is also his approach to gun control: compromise.

[bigwillq]

16. Probably not

I don't trust Hillary Clinton at all.

[treestar]

18. There is a huge bureaucracy in place - it enforces the law

and the POTUS job is to enforce the law.

You really think she is going to close down those offices and have the law simply not be enforced?

All because of speaking fees? And the media is not going to notice.

This is getting way oversimplified.

[Jefferson23]

20. I'll state up front I have a bias for Bill Black and would love to see him have a role

in a Sanders administration or Clinton should she win. With that said, there is a
major dilemma for Clinton which brings with it a sharp contrast to Sanders.

If Sanders can run a presidential campaign without their money and do as well
as he has so far, why can't Clinton? Why does she believe the American people
who by far include Independents who also despise the corruption of WS....yet the
approach she decided on was to market herself as a speaker with high fees
attached.

You would have to be naive to not understand the differences here and
no one should ignore what the DoJ did not accomplish these last 7 years
regarding WS top tier executives.

To answer the question in the OP more directly, she will move the meter
a bit but it may not be what is best for the country but likely palatable
enough for the wolves of WS.

[Agony]

32. ***

I think it is fair to say that a Clinton DoJ would look more like the Obama DoJ than a Sanders DoJ and we do not need more of the same.

We need an aggressive DoJ that Sanders is more likely to foster.

[Broward]

22. To trust anything that Hillary says by now would be incredibly naive.

[CharlotteVale]

23. ....

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Banks are unregulated BECAUSE they make politicians rich. n/t

[JRLeft]

25. She cannot get out of the way of her own personal biases. She's owned by WS.

[TDale313]

28. Nope. N/T

[TIME TO PANIC]

29. Can Hillary Clinton Be Trusted to Regulate the Banks That Made Her Rich?

[djean111]

33. You are kidding, right? No. n/t