timschochet
Footballguy
Krugman also notes that Hedge fund managers have given almost nothing to Hillary's campaign and that she will not be beholden to them at all. So another myth dispelled.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Delamaide: Wall Street is in Hillary Clinton's corner
WASHINGTON — Behind the scenes, Hillary Clinton's campaign for president belies the Wall Street reform rhetoric that she uses to appeal to left-wing Democratic voters.
It was Deep Throat's reputed advice to reporters in the Watergate scandal that made "follow the money" the iconic slogan for those seeking to ferret out corruption in U.S. politics.
But the political slush fund in Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign seems quaint in the wake of Citizens United, super PACs and the even darker pools of campaign funds that are the forms of corporate payoffs to politicians nowadays.
Much of the money is impossible to follow as dubious non-profit organizations mask the identity of their donors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fights efforts to make companies disclose their political contributions.
However, we can still see the tip of the iceberg through the tatters of campaign finance law that remain. And what that tip tells us is that Wall Street is still squarely behind Clinton.
Moreover, the drip feed of policy prescriptions that Clinton has embarked on (there's more to come "over the course of this campaign," she says) obscures the fact that there's not really that much reform there.
Her proposals for reforming capital gains tax by scaling up the amount of time it takes to get truly favorable rates, for instance, met mixed reviews. Some critics say it won't accomplish her stated goal of getting companies to look beyond quarterly profits.
In any case, it's small potatoes compared to forthright calls by her rivals for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, to break up the banks and impose more drastic restrictions on bank activity.
In fact, Clinton has rejected the idea of reintroducing a Glass-Steagall Act to separate commercial banks from investment banking, saying the issue is "more complicated" than that — echoing excuses by the Obama administration for not following through on more aggressive financial reform.
One of the things making it "complicated" might be the unstinting support Clinton is getting from Wall Street.
An analysis of the most recent federal campaign contribution data by the Huffington Post found Clinton in the lead in donations from Wall Street with $432,610 from bank executives, employees and their spouses.
Republican hopefuls Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio trailed with $353,150 and $105,669, respectively.
Again, this is the tip of the iceberg, because it doesn't include funds flowing into many super PACs and the very dark 501©(4) organizations like Americans for Prosperitythat ostensibly promote social welfare but are shams for political advocacy.
This is on top, in Clinton's case, of the millions she and her husband, the former president, collected in "speaking fees" in the months prior to the official declaration of her candidacy, including from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and other Wall Street firms.
These ties are well known, but the fact that this support continues in the face of Clinton's leftish rhetoric tells us Wall Street is not too worried about anything Clinton may do if she were to win the election.
This susceptibility to influence by mega-donors is not confined to Wall Street or financial services.
In a report this week on Clinton's ambitious plans for increasing renewable energy, The New York Times quoted her own press secretary as noting that these goals met the bar to win her donations from hedge fund billionaire and environmentalist Tom Steyer. (The report also noted her plans would require new legislation that would be difficult to pass.)
As important as the money trail is, there are other indications behind the scenes that Clinton does not envisage any radical changes — or even any significant restrictions — on Wall Street.
Her top advisers include two former investment bankers who have a history of being soft on financial regulation. Both held high positions in Clinton's State Department and would be obvious candidates for cabinet posts in a new Clinton administration.
Tom Nides, a veteran of Morgan Stanley and a former chairman of the main financial services lobbying group Sifma (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association), was deputy secretary of state under Clinton.
Robert Hormats, a longtime vice chairman at Goldman Sachs and currently vice chair of Kissinger Associates, was an under secretary during Clinton's tenure at State.
It was President Bill Clinton, let us not forget, who brought Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin and his coterie of Wall Streeters into his administration and championed the financial deregulation that led to the 2008 financial crisis.
Hillary Clinton may have many things to recommend her as a presidential candidate, but Wall Street reform is not one of them. Voters who think this country needs reform beyond what a hobbled Dodd-Frank act can deliver will have to look elsewhere.
Business columnist Darrell Delamaide has reported on business and economics from New York, Paris, Berlin and Washington for Dow Jones news service, Barron's,Institutional Investor and Bloomberg News service, among others.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/07/28/delmaide-wall-street-support-hillary-clinton/30781705/
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'm looking this over. Can you quote the part where he mentions how much money Hillary personally, Bill personally, their companies and their non-profit "Foundation" have been paid by the financial sector since 2008?
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Krugman, like Clinton, misses the point that the danger of shadow banking is when it's contagion spreads to the commercial banking sector. Keeping commercial banks from engaging in those type of activities is absolutely the correct way to keep it from happening. That means restoring Glass-Steagall.
timschochet
Footballguy
He's discussing this campaign. Krugman acknowledges that in the past Wall Street contributed heavily to Democrats, but Points out that after Dodd- Franks in 2010 that stopped almost entirely.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Also so he also doesn't mention the value to Hillary of Goldman-Sachs setting up her daughter and son in law in the hedge fund business in a private company of their own, and also how much that is?
So he completely avoids the question of direct monetary influence on the Clintons in their future decision making once in the WH?
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
cstu
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
We've known about the seriousness of what is being investigated for some time now.
timschochet
Footballguy
I see. You've been one of the biggest proponents around here that Hillary Clinton is basically bought and sold by Wall Street. Is Krugman bought and sold too? Or are either of them allowed to have a different economic opinion from yours without being part of the corporate conspiracy?
The Commish
Footballguy
Is this one of those "technically it wasn't the institutions that gave her the money, but rather just the leaders of those institutions" gotcha things?
List of Hillary's campaign contributors over her career
ETA: And this is just the contributions made publicly and directly to the campaigns.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't see what Hillary's son in law does as being relevant to her economic policies as President.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't think Slap mentioned the corruption issue in that particular post. He's speaking to the substance of the issue itself.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Influence. If someone pays someone's daughter or gives her the benefit of millions of dollars potentially that is most definitely a factor to be considered in confecting policy that might affect that benefactor.
timschochet
Footballguy
"Over her career." Krugman argues that the change came in 2010 after Dodd Franks, and that Hillary is not beholden to Wall Street NOW.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Do you deny how much she, Bill, their companies, their non-profit, and their daughter/soninlaw have been paid since 2010? Do we really need to look it up. It's been established.
Last edited by a moderator:
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
Anyone who thinks Hillary would enact real reform on Wall Street is either uninformed, dumb or trolling. In fairness to her though, almost every other candidate besides Bernie is only giving lip service to Wall Street reform.
timschochet
Footballguy
Nonsense. You're implying that the son in law didn't earn his position and wealth. So far as I know he did, and long before he ever met Chelsea Clinton. Also the argument that Presidents will feel inclined to affect national economic policy in order to benefit the financial situations of relatives is a pretty serious charge. Washington DC is not Baton Rouge.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
It seems like a pretty small sample size if we're only talking about post-2010. This is Hillary's first campaign in that time period.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
When did Chelsea's husband get hooked up in his new hedge fund business again? Do you even know?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It's not that difficult. Firm X does a favor for a member of Hillary's family (daughter, son-in-law, husband, whoever). That firm hopes, in return, that their generosity will be remembered when Hillary is president and is making policy that will affect Firm X.
Even if Hillary has absolutely no intention whatsoever of helping Firm X -- even if she secretly hates Firm X and plans on crushing it when she gets into office -- an ethical person will usually go out of his or her way to avoid even the appearance of a possible quid pro quo. Hillary doesn't bother to do this, because, of course, she's not ethical.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, do I have to drive this?
Goldman-Sachs is literally invested in Hillary's daughter's future.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-co-founded-by-chelsea-clintons-husband-suffers-losses-tied-to-greece-1423000325
Goldman-Sachs is literally invested in Hillary's daughter's future.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And apples and trees and all that:
That's the polite wiki version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mezvinsky
That's the polite wiki version.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Indeed. Which is why most people would move heaven and earth to avoid having that charge leveled at them. This is exactly why so many politicians have their personal wealth invested in "blind trusts." Normal, ethical people don't find themselves in the sorts of situations that Hillary regularly experiences.
timschochet
Footballguy
Look I gotta run anyhow but I really don't want to be dragged into this son-in-law discussion. I don't think it's relevant at all to what Krugman was pointing out. The point is that Hillary's portrayal by some (most?) here as a shill for Wall Street doesn't really jibe with the facts.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
The Commish
Footballguy
BroncoFreak_2K3
sucker for Orange
Sand
Footballguy
Foreign debt deal scandals - Goldman is there.
Muni scandals - Goldman is there.
Political scandals - Goldman is there.
The best job in the world has to be Goldman's lawyer team. Talk about never running out of things to do.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
At least he threw up the white flag relatively early on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamesbrownkid
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html
Obama’s Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. Inquiry
I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
Ron Hosko, a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said it was inappropriate for the president to “suggest what side of the investigation he is on” when the F.B.I. is still investigating.
Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.
Obama’s Comments on Clinton Emails Collide With F.B.I. Inquiry
I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”
Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.
Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.
Ron Hosko, a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, said it was inappropriate for the president to “suggest what side of the investigation he is on” when the F.B.I. is still investigating.
Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” said Mr. Hosko, who maintains close contact with current agents.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, I'm back (briefly.) I don't want to get into defending stuff that I know very little about. Like pretty much everyone else here, I have always assumed that Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street were pretty substantial. Unlike many of you here, I never automatically assumed from that knowledge that Hillary would be beholden to Wall Street in terms of economic policy, especially as she states otherwise. Many of you assume she is corrupt; I do not. That's why I found the Krugman article so illuminating.
As Krugman points out, most of the leading Republicans are calling for a repeal to Dodd-Franks and an EASING of restrictions on Wall Street. Meanwhile both Clinton and Sanders are calling for a tightening, though Sanders wants a return to Glass-Steagall, Hillary believes that is a simplistic approach, and Krugman agrees with her. The meme that I have been reading among progressives, along with some conservative critics of Hillary, ever since the debate Tuesday (and even before) is that by Hillary arguing against a return to Glass-Steagall, she is demonstrating that she is a shill for Wall Street and that she means to do nothing, which will make Wall Street happy. But Krugman's statement shows this not to be true, IMO. That's why I was eager to post it. Because there is a far more complex and nuanced world out there beyond the "Hillary is the evil corporatist; Bernie is the good heroic people's candidate" mantra that I'm constantly reading in this forum.
As Krugman points out, most of the leading Republicans are calling for a repeal to Dodd-Franks and an EASING of restrictions on Wall Street. Meanwhile both Clinton and Sanders are calling for a tightening, though Sanders wants a return to Glass-Steagall, Hillary believes that is a simplistic approach, and Krugman agrees with her. The meme that I have been reading among progressives, along with some conservative critics of Hillary, ever since the debate Tuesday (and even before) is that by Hillary arguing against a return to Glass-Steagall, she is demonstrating that she is a shill for Wall Street and that she means to do nothing, which will make Wall Street happy. But Krugman's statement shows this not to be true, IMO. That's why I was eager to post it. Because there is a far more complex and nuanced world out there beyond the "Hillary is the evil corporatist; Bernie is the good heroic people's candidate" mantra that I'm constantly reading in this forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Huma is testifying today behind closed doors. For some reason, Trey Gowdy is not there.
According to CNN, Huma is being asked ONLY about the nights of 9/11/12 and 9/12/12 and how Hillary and the Obama administration reacted to the Benghazi crisis. This seems very odd to me, since Huma wasn't even there. Contrary to prior reports, she is NOT being asked about the email server, nor is she being asked about her work in the private sector at the same time as she was working for Hillary Clinton.
What is the purpose of this hearing?
According to CNN, Huma is being asked ONLY about the nights of 9/11/12 and 9/12/12 and how Hillary and the Obama administration reacted to the Benghazi crisis. This seems very odd to me, since Huma wasn't even there. Contrary to prior reports, she is NOT being asked about the email server, nor is she being asked about her work in the private sector at the same time as she was working for Hillary Clinton.
What is the purpose of this hearing?
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry, Sinn Fein, but the actual polls are out, not the instant internet polls or the focus groups, but an actual statistical sampling of Democratic voters:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrats-hillary-clinton-won-debate-poll-article-1.2399998
WASHINGTON — Solid majorities of Democrats say Hillary Clinton won the first Democratic debate, according to a trio of new polls.
When asked who did the best job in the debate, 56% of Democrats said Clinton did while 33% said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders did in an online poll NBC and Survey Monkey released Friday morning.
That's similar to the 55%-22% edge she has over Sanders in a Huffington Post online poll conducted by YouGov and released overnight. A Gravis Marketing phone survey found 62% of Democrats thought Clinton won, to 30% for Sanders.
Pundits quickly surmised that Clinton had won the debate, though Sanders generated a lot more online interest throughout — and a pair of focus groups and a few non-scientific online surveys indicated that he might have gotten the best of her. But this trio of more calibrated, scientifically rigorous polls show that Clinton likely did the most good for herself with her performance.
NBC's poll also shows Clinton has continued her solid lead over Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden, who will likely soon decide whether or not he's going to enter the race.
Clinton leads Sanders by 45%-31% in the poll of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, with Biden at 10%. In their September poll Clinton led Sanders by 42%-29%, with Biden at 15%.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/democrats-hillary-clinton-won-debate-poll-article-1.2399998
WASHINGTON — Solid majorities of Democrats say Hillary Clinton won the first Democratic debate, according to a trio of new polls.
When asked who did the best job in the debate, 56% of Democrats said Clinton did while 33% said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders did in an online poll NBC and Survey Monkey released Friday morning.
That's similar to the 55%-22% edge she has over Sanders in a Huffington Post online poll conducted by YouGov and released overnight. A Gravis Marketing phone survey found 62% of Democrats thought Clinton won, to 30% for Sanders.
Pundits quickly surmised that Clinton had won the debate, though Sanders generated a lot more online interest throughout — and a pair of focus groups and a few non-scientific online surveys indicated that he might have gotten the best of her. But this trio of more calibrated, scientifically rigorous polls show that Clinton likely did the most good for herself with her performance.
NBC's poll also shows Clinton has continued her solid lead over Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden, who will likely soon decide whether or not he's going to enter the race.
Clinton leads Sanders by 45%-31% in the poll of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, with Biden at 10%. In their September poll Clinton led Sanders by 42%-29%, with Biden at 15%.
The Commish
Footballguy
The "facts" are in the link I posted to you. That's her history, what she's done, her actions. What Krugman is talking about is (at best) what "might be" in the future. It's a prediction. Not close to being a fact. If you want to believe this leppard has changed it's spots, that's on you and remains to be seen. There's a first time for everything though.
Correct. Unfortunately Tim, like Clinton, cannot speak to the substance of the issue.
I suppose it depends on one's definition of "identity politics". My definition is a lot more strict than timschochet's or most other people in here. IMO, identity politics is when a politician attempts to win votes solely by virtue of being part of a particular group. For example, "vote for me because I'm a woman". Again, IMO, this is very different than "vote for me because my policies will benefit women" or "vote for me because my opponent is a shrieking lunatic who hates women".
Hillary is very much playing the "vote for me because I'm a woman" card, and that is identity politics and the effectiveness isn't much related to the GOP's actions. I suspect nominating Castro is also an attempt to play the "vote for me because I have a Latino running mate" card.
BTW, McCain's team played the exact same card in 2008 with the choice of Palin as a running mate (as did Mondale in '84). I don't think Obama played this card (although I'm certain many voters did vote for him solely because of his race).
So you support this point by linking something that is basically a "Democrats good, Republicans evil" partisan piece?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
IIRC one of the emails talked about CNN reporting that State had been told, ie received a cable, the attack was a terrorist attack, Clinton then emails her aide Mills where is the cable? Hillary also previously testified that she had not received cables about the dangerous security situation in the city.
The public record is suggesting that Hillary was very much in touch with Blumenthal and her inner circle but not very much in touch with the intelligence community and her own Department.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like the hearing is if she knows Anything about Benghazi.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Perhaps the tide is turning:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-recovers-some-ground-in-new-hampshire-poll/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-recovers-some-ground-in-new-hampshire-poll/
dhockster
Footballguy
If they were asking about the emails you would be complaining that the committee was just on a witch hunt to get Hillary.
Shouldn't they be asking questions about Benghazi, since they are a committee investigating the attack on the embassy in Benghazi?
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think they should be asking any questions. I think they should apologize to her, to Hillary, to the public, disband the committee, and then resign from office in disgrace.
dhockster
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That really wasn't your point in your OP, Tim. When confronted with the fact that Abedin, who also withheld records as she was on Clinton's server as well, had information relevant to our conduct in Libya in the run-up to the attack on the mission, you now say the committee has no business at all.
I'd like to hear your take when you've done a business deal closing on a piece of property and you find out the seller failed to disclose that there were environmental hazards associated with the property. I am so sure you wouldn't want to see the documentation relating to that or ask for a second round of negotiations. Same principle at work.
- Status
Similar threads
