2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton: Cooperation, not speeches, is needed to regulate Wall Street
The Hill: Clinton: Cooperation, not speeches, is needed to regulate Wall Street
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Democratic presidential candidate Clinton defended her decision to not be a "stem winder" in calling to break up big banks, a clear reference to her 2016 challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
"I may not always be the stem winder about these things, because I think it's important and I've been around Washington long enough to know that you have to get people to agree if you want to get something done," Clinton told Dunham.
Progressives have long raised concerns about Clinton's ties to Wall Street, and Sanders, a self-described socialist, has surged in recent weeks in part because of his rousing anti-big-business speeches.
"You know, some people say, 'All we have to do it break up the banks,'" Clinton continued.
"The problem with that is that the banks did their fair share of trouble, but a lot of problems were not from these traditional banks, they were from whats called the shadow-banking world like Lehman Brothers, which went belly up and brought a lot of people down with them; or AIG, a gigantic insurance company."
"I feel strongly that the Dodd-Frank legislation that was passed after President Obama took office is a good down payment, but it's not good enough," Clinton said.
"We are now fighting just to get it implemented. What has not been implemented, I will absolutely implement it, and then I will look for any other abuses that needs to be stopped and curved."
Mrs. Clinton has not come out in favor of restoring the Glass-Steagall Act. Mrs. Clinton has historically received large contributions from the banking sector.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The only bank that got into trouble that had been regulated by Glass-Steagall was Citi, and Citi got in trouble because it made bad investments that would have been perfectly legal under Glass-Steagall.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Here is why Bill Clintons simply wrong.
The financial crisis occurred because banks involved in trading had become massive, concentrated and interconnected in response to the repeal of Glass-Steagalls separation. It makes no difference that Bear Stearns and Lehman were not actually universal banks (meaning both commercial and investment). The point was that they were enormous and completely tied into the other big banks.
There were only five notable investment banks left in early 2008. Of those, two went down, a third (Merrill Lynch) survived only by a forced merger into Bank of America, and the fourth and fifthGoldman and Morgan Stanleywere threatened with failure when they were converted overnight to universal banks. Converting to universal banks qualified them for FDIC insurance and the implicit support of the US government.
The big universal banks were directly in the path of the financial crisis and would not have survived without the TARP bailout (provided with no strings attached) and dozens of other supports from the Fed and Treasury.
Of course, as Clinton said, the unified banks were slightly less likely to fail because they were connected to the US Treasury indirectly through FDIC insurance. However, the real question was whether failure of any individual banks of certain significance could potentially trigger a systemic failure, dragging down all banks.
That was exactly what happened in 2008. It was a direct result of the massive increase in the size, concentration and interconnectedness of financial institutions as a consequence of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act. The former President did many fine things, but signing that Act was not one of them.
It's technically correct that the repeal of Glass-Steagal was not the trigger for the crisis, but it's incorrect to say that the repeal didn't contribute to the existence of the crisis and the widespread risk of the 2008 banking meltdown.
It's ridiculous to argue we don't need to restore this regulation, and there's bipartisan support for it's restoration.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The Hill
7/2015
Warren called on Democrats to rally behind her proposal to re-instate Glass-Steagall, which President Bill Clinton repealed in 1999, during a speech in Washington to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law. She portrayed the repeal of Glass-Steagall as one of the causes of the 2008 economic collapse, something that Federal Reserve officials and Clinton refute.
"That high wall between high-risk trading and boring banking was punched full of holes until in the late 1990s, it was knocked down when Glass-Steagall was eventually repealed," she said. "And not long after that, the worst crash since the 1930s hit the American economy."
Warrens comments come a day after an advisor to Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton said Clinton has no plans to push for the bank break-up bill.
Youre not going to see Glass-Steagall, Alan Blinder said, adding that he had spoken directly to Clinton about the issue.
Two of Clinton's challengers, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have called for re-instating it.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247929-warren-calls-for-return-of-glass-steagall
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That insulation would have contained the crisis to the insurance/investment banks. Much like the S&L crisis didn't cripple "regular" banks.
It would still have hurt, just not nearly as badly.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people, to the disastrous Global Collapse of the world's economies. Now it needs to be reinstated before they do it again.
How anyone could even try to deny that is beyond me. We know what happened and we know that warnings were ignored back when the neolibs finally got their chance to do what never should have done.
Glass Steagal prevented what happened for decades. Now it must be restored and the corruption of Wall St dealt with. Their clever Ponzi Scheme was exposed in detail for anyone who cared to read it.
Banks should not be allowed to become investment firms, using people's pensions to gamble on Wall St. Then set up one of the most blatantly corrupt system to cover themselves when they KNEW that eventually they would need that coverage.
And never again should con artists who gambled away this country's treasure, be bailed out by tax payers, then rewarded for their criminal behavior.
If anyone thinks the people have 'gotten over' all that, they are so out of touch with the people, still suffering the consequences, they need a rude awakening and hopefully will get it.
As for Hillary, this is one of the main reasons, I do not support her. We need no more apologists for Wall St in power in this country.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Were knee deep in it now ....
As if that has brought anything other then MORE for Wall St. and the Wealthy Elite. In my opinion putting lipstick on a pig just gets everyone muddy
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Has anyone claimed a speech is all it takes?
More lies.
oasis
(49,392 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)oasis
(49,392 posts)Since you attached "more lies" to your post #2, a person's honesty and integrity seem to be very important to you.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"Some people say" are her words. Those people are non-existent.
oasis
(49,392 posts)I've heard it before over the years bars, barbershops, public transportation. Those people existed then and they exist now. I'll admit it's something you don't hear everyday like "is the coffee ready yet Dear?".
It is entirely conceivable Hillary has heard those words spoken, she has had contact with thousands worldwide.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's a strawman, IMO.
oasis
(49,392 posts)there is still mention of it. Discussion, pro and con still exists.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If she is slyly referring to Bernie Sanders, then she needs to pay a lot more attention to what he ACTUALLY has said about the corruption on Wall St since deregulation was achieved.
Vague references to vague people won't do for someone who is asking us for the most important job in the country. She will be asked to whom she is referring, after which we can determine if she has actually studied the people who definitely want to break up those monstrous, corrupt institutions which have cost us, the tax payers, TRILLIONS of dollars that WE would like to spend on things this country actually needs, not to keep them in the comfort of the lives they have become accustomed to.
And we will need far more application of the law to those who break it, and more laws if necessary to make it harder for them to operate in the way they did which destroyed, and still is destroying, the lives of so many people.
Hillary seems to think it's all over with and everyone's doing fine. How on earth could she possibly think that when millions are still suffering from the losses caused by that massive corrupting of our economic system?
And many will NEVER recover. So unless someone is so out of touch with ordinary people it should be no surprise to them that this is a #1 issue for many Americans and will remain so until our 'rigged system' is fixed and some of these people are held accountable.
oasis
(49,392 posts)What did Hill say that that is even close to what you suggest?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)need to know regarding her understanding of what this did to millions of Americans. Nor does she seem to know that no, we are not stupid, millions of Americans have done their homework on this considering they were the victims of it. What we found out was extremely disturbing.
That SHE hasn't or doesn't want to, means she either doesn't care that no, millions of Americans are not doing fine, many will NEVER recover from the policies of her Wall St friends OR she doesn't have a clue.
Which is worse I leave to others to judge. For me, when a potential employee has a history of making unwise decisions, taking advice from pretty questionable characters, I don't promote them to President of the Company. But that's just me, and what do we little people know after all?
I know this, when top issues for the people include re-regulating a corrupt financial system that has so adversely affected them and getting the money out of politics, who should someone who is running for 'PUBLIC' office be listening to? Clearly Hillary is not listening to the People or she would never have said 'we don't need to restore Glass Steagal'.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Like a war in Iraq.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Senator Dorgan's warnings that bad things would happen to the economy within 10 years were ignored. Bill Clinton signed it into law. Sanders voted no. Sure enough, we got the Great Recession within 10 years. Why is Hillary to the right of McCain on this issue?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)The Clinton crew says only she can reach across the aisle and get both parties to come together. However, that is NOT the case when it comes to this topic. Whereas Sanders would advocate for it and sign it into law.
She's basically admitting she would be the wrong choice.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Not only that but a great many "sensible" people are telling us repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)had nothing to do with the creation of ISIS.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Campaigning as someone who can deliver would be an error for her.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So...
VOTE FOR ME!!!!!!
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Is for transparent and ethical government to exert its proper and necessary authority over the financial industry.
Autumn
(45,109 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)I'm so tired of her BS
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)If I had any doubt before that she was a complete sellout, now I have none.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She is OWNED by the banksters. Lock, stock and barrel.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)nailed it.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)banking sector, that she opts for cooperation rather than regulation is jaw-dropping.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)and plenty of "cooperation" in the form of bailouts.
so...where's the regulation?
elana i am
(814 posts)a very simple and succinct speech that goes something like this: you are going to be dismantled, you are going to be strictly regulated. this is how it's going to be so get used to it. fuck you very much. the end.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)with active oversight systems with long powerful teeth.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Her cabinet would be full of the fuckers, and this is exactly what we DON'T need!
artislife
(9,497 posts)Listen to her! I just can't understand how someone who claims to be liberal would back her.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)"If they have a D on their jacket, I'll support them!!!"
If there was actual depth to the support, we'd be able to debate issues here. Instead, it's mudslinging.
antigop
(12,778 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Like we do now? And why we need to change now?
Remember last December?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Sivart
(325 posts)This part.....
"I may not always be the stem winder about these things, because I think it's important and I've been around Washington long enough to know that you have to get people to agree if you want to get something done," Clinton told Dunham.
sounds like the exact opposite to what she told the Black Lives Matter people.
She told them something to the effect of - you can't change hearts and minds....you just have to get the right legislation passed.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)There's been way too much "cooperation" as it is...........
I'm so done it's not even funny.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Arm twisting. Obama proved that the GOP will never, ever negotiate in good faith EVER.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)That much is clear.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)From my view it seems like those who hold similar views as the Clintons who want to "cooperate" with the Republican Party really just end up co-opting or outright promoting what are traditionally white wing policies. This spans from economics to a permanent war state.
Many of the great "advances" of this "cooperation" has resulted in the outsourcing of jobs, main street economic stagnation, an every steeper treadmill for the average American, dead and injured soldiers, and scores of thousands more dead or injured both at home or abroad.
I don't believe the Republican people, many of whom are party of my community, are the enemy and I loathe that we call a third of the US population "the enemy" here on DU. However it seems when the elite of the Democratic Party and the elite of the Republican Party get together to agree on something it's almost always bad. This is especially true for the legacy of Bill Clinton's Presidency as well as the nightmare that was the Bush Presidency.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to choose the 'gatekeepers'. It should be a warning to voters when they see who is funding candidates and it turns out to be many of the same people who screwed this country so badly.
THAT is what this election is going to be about, for the first time. The elites, people like the Clintons, on the inside think that we the people don't know what's good for us so THEY will decide for us.
The sheer arrogance is stunning. Because for the most part they are not too bright themselves and are totally puzzled at the rise of an unknown Senator from a small state no one ever heard until a few months ago.
THAT is because they are blind to the people, their opinions don't matter to them. We are the 'proles' in their view, and they consider themselves to be very 'generous' to masses of proles who have the audacity not to be GRATEFUL for the crumbs they and their fellow geniuses are so kindly willing to throw our way.
History is replete with this kind of arrogance and with what happens inevitably when those in power refuse to look outside their own small bubble and see and hear what the people are saying. Because it seems to me that the average college student today is smarter than these wealthy, tone deaf people who have already destroyed our economy AND more around the globe.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Top Contributors
Senator Hillary Clinton
Citigroup Inc $824,402 $816,402 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $760,740 $750,740 $10,000
DLA Piper $700,530 $673,530 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $696,456 $693,456 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $636,564 $631,564 $5,000
EMILY's List $609,684 $605,764 $3,920
Time Warner $501,831 $476,831 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $469,290 $464,790 $4,500
University of California $417,327 $417,327 $0
Sullivan & Cromwell $369,150 $369,150 $0
Akin, Gump et al $364,478 $360,978 $3,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
21st Century Fox $340,936 $340,936 $0
Cablevision Systems $336,613 $307,225 $29,388
Kirkland & Ellis $329,141 $312,141 $17,000
National Amusements Inc $328,312 $325,312 $3,000
Squire Patton Boggs $328,306 $322,868 $5,438
Greenberg Traurig LLP $327,890 $319,790 $8,100
Corning Inc $322,450 $304,450 $18,000
Credit Suisse Group $318,120 $308,120 $10,000