2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton's Warnings to Wall Street
I have done some research...maybe not enough. I can't seem to find any evidence of Hillary going to Wall Street prior to the crash warning them that their behavior would ruin the economy. My apologies to Hillary supporters if I am just being brain dead on this issue. I would be more than happy to entertain any references supporting her claim.
Thanks...
-P
dchill
(38,532 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)She did a lot of blaming of homeowners too, who partially hold fault for the bubble. But not much criticism for the industry.
WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)PatrickforO
(14,587 posts)Because I don't blame homeowners for the bubble, I blame the predatory capitalists. And, anyway, saying, "Cut it out, guys" hardly constitutes any genuine effort to make things better.
This is a pretty f-ing weak talking point for the Clinton campaign, isn't it?
because it is the opposite of telling the truth.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Now, our far lefters may think this means nothing because Hillary is not an implacable enemy of Wall Street. She is too sensible and competent for that. This speech, however, confirmed Wall Street, never a friend, as an implacable enemy of Hillary Clinton.
Please note that in 2007 the Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress. All financial legislation passed was to benefit business and was deeply flawed by highly irresponsible and ideologically extreme anti-regulation bias. Hillary was not in a position to force the financial industry to do anything at all. All she could do in the face of impending crisis was go to them and try to talk them into bridling their greed for their own good as well as the nation's. She did call for a long list of needed changes that would have prevented the 2008 crash if they had been made.
Hillary's personal indictment of Wall Street below, however, is generally quite similar to with Elizabeth Warren's positions. This speech did make very clear to them that, if Hillary were elected President, she would do everything she could to reattach the regulatory leash that the financial industry had slipped out of under reaganomics, as well as to restore and introduce many, many other regulations on business.
Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.
Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.
Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.
And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.
But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. [Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.
Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse.
think
(11,641 posts)~Snip~
A review of that 28-minute talk at an office of the Nasdaq stock exchange in New York shows Clinton steered a middle ground. She presented a detailed analysis of the burgeoning dangers in the housing market and its threat to the economy. (ProPublica obtained a video of the speech, which hasnt previously been posted.)
Clinton gave a shout-out to her wonderful donors in the audience, and asked the bankers to voluntarily suspend foreclosures and freeze interest rates on adjustable subprime mortgages. She praised Wall Street for its role in creating the nations wealth, then added that too many American families are not sharing in that prosperity.
She said the brewing economic troubles werent mainly the fault of banks, not by a long shot, but added they needed to shoulder responsibility for their role. While there was plenty of blame to go around for the spate of reckless lending, and while Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, it certainly had a hand in making it worse and needs to help us solve it.
Finally, Clinton said, if the banks didnt take the voluntary steps she proposed, I will consider legislation to address the problem.,,,
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-told-wall-street-to-cut-it-out-not-so-much-the-record-shows-213363#ixzz42EzdoXPp
WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)I probably could have found this on my own. It does sound like she was hedging a little. I guess my next question would be concerning fees for her speeches to same. How can you warn the industry and still take money from them. Now, for the first time, I really AM interested in the transcripts of her speeches.
-P