But Lloyd Blankfein? He’s my bro!
What is untrue about the statement? Is O’Malley secretly the preferred Democratic nominee of more Wall Street and corporate donors? I’m pretty sure it’s not Bernie.
1 Like
Go for it, Hillary.
You will never go wrong with using Bernie as your wingman…just stay the course,.
1 Like
Hillary’s plan to rein in Wall Street is better than Bernie’s.
She’s not Wall Street’s favorite—90% of WS money is going to Republicans.
2 Likes
Read more carefully – I was referring to the Democratic nomination, not the general election.
Either way, she’s not the darling of Wall Street.
She isn’t? O.K. You’re welcome to your opinion, in fact I hope you’re right…but I have my doubts.
This dealing with Hillary versus the Republicans reminds me of the old Olympics.
“The East German judge says 9.9”
If one wants to trust the MSM at this point to “make equivalent” the raptors of the Right with people like O’Malley, Sanders and Clinton, then c’est la vie.
People will just have to Grow Up.
We are in a Planetary Crisis. Bernie may have understated it so as not to discourage the young from thinking the situation is hopeless.
If the voting public (besides the Insane Baggers, who are in their own circles of madness) wishes to play this stupefyingly juvenile “HorseRace” nonsense, with the Republican anarchists elevated to competency alongside of the Democrats…then the term “wasting precious time” will have had a whole new meaning for any future historians with a Planet to operate in.
Without a restoration of a Glass Steagall absolute firewall between commercial and investment banking, Hillary’s plan is just so many more ineffectual words. Everyone in the circle understands this, but so do many others without personal interest in maintaining the status quo.
Look at her list of leading donors. One hand washes the other. Hillary’s “unprecedented” candidacy is not based on Wall St. reform; but the campaign’s skids are greased with Wall St. money. As Walter Cronkite was wont to say, “And that’s the way it is.”
Read the story at this link:
1 Like
Thanks, I did. I agree there’s some good stuff there. Whether she will actually push for any of this if she becomes President…I guess if she wins we’ll find out.
IF she weren’t planning on pushing for it, I doubt she’d have worked so hard to create the plan.
1 Like
IF she weren’t planning on pushing for it, I doubt she’d have worked so hard to create the plan.
Unless it’s mostly about deflecting criticism of her cozy ties and generous funding from Wall Street, as opposed to being based on a sincerely held belief that Wall Street is urgently in need of serious reform.
Either way, I’m glad she has laid out her specific proposals on this issue, since she’s the odds-on favorite to win the nomination, and probably the Presidency. If she’s sincere on this issue, great. If not, it’s at least encouraging that she feels the need to portray herself as an aspiring Wall Street reformer, and it will be up to us to hold her feet to the fire and make sure her actions in office reflect her rhetoric on the campaign trail.
(also to @ProfessorPoopypants) Just fyi, Krugman recently wrote about the relative merits of Bernie’s and Hillary’s takes on Wall Street reform (he thinks both are fine but actually prefers hers, because restoring Glass-Steagall wouldn’t solve the problem of shadow banking, which was the primary cause of the crisis), and points out that even her Wall Street contributions are dwarfed by the GOP’s:
The relative token contributions to Hillary are no doubt a combination of bet-hedging and the vanishingly few Wall Street types who actually favor real reform (not quite as rare as unicorns – I actually know two, who are a) actually decent people and b) smart enough to know what another crisis would cost the country, the world, and capitalism). But surely those who believe she’s been pushed to the left by the campaign must believe she’d remain susceptible to comparable pressure as president.
Edit, to PPp: yup, hold her feet to the fire. And do so the way FDR meant it when he told those reformers, “All right, I agree. Now make me do it.” Not by crying “corporatist” but by mobilizing to build public pressure so Congress will want it done. With Warren and Sanders leading the fight from the Senate.
3 Likes
FWIW, Krugman actually disagrees; see the link I just posted above.
Do you mean the cozy ties and generous funding that don’t exist except in the heads of people who have bought the Karl Rove version of Hillary?
Do you mean the cozy ties and generous funding that don’t exist except in the heads of people who have bought the Karl Rove version of Hillary?
You can blame old ham-head for a lot of things, but not this. The close ties are real, as is the well-documented history of generous funding.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
You are welcome to pretend otherwise, but you’ll have to excuse me if I find it a bit laughable.
Thanx for the link. I tryed to return the favor with a link to a Robert Reich piece, but I failed at embedding it. Reich is quite adamant that “shadow bankers” did benefit from low-cost “loans” from investment bankers for the abusively mishandled commercial banking assets. He says that only reimposing the absolute firewall between commercial banks and investment banks (“shadow banks” included) will prevent high-risk speculators gamble with Americans’ assets. Google: Robert Reich/Glass Steagall.
I’ve read it, thanks. Both are definitely an issue, but the abuse of assorted derivative inventions (frequently by entities that are neither commercial banks nor investment banks, nor strictly “banks” of any kind) that are the essence of “shadow banking” is what turned losses into global catastrophe. Still, I love Reich; over time I’ve just come to trust Krugman’s judgment more than just about anyone’s, given his track record (and my own admittedly far more limited knowledge).