Hillary already sucking up to Jeb's wall Street donors

[RaphaelDLG]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872

Assuring a conservative reckless dereg favoring republican's donors that she is simpatico with their values.  I'm kind of surprised at how quickly this happened.

Uh, yeah, there's absolutely no chance she's getting my vote in November.  She and the hundreds like her have to be punished somehow.  I'm also very unenthusiastic about/probably jettisoning my recent plan to convince my NC relatives to vote for HRC.  This bullsh**t is just so frustrating.

[Ebsy]

Where exactly in that article does Clinton promise deregulation?

[IceSpear]

How is this controversial?

Wall Street doesn't want massive uncertainty in the markets or an economic collapse. I'm sure 99% of the public agrees. So of course they'd prefer Hillary over loose cannon Trump, regardless of how strongly she'd want to regulate them.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

LOL, what?

[Ebsy]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

who care

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So of course they'd prefer Hillary over loose cannon Trump, regardless of how strongly she'd want to regulate them.

Which is not very much. The foundation of DLC/Third Way is deference to Wall Street.

[IceSpear]

So of course they'd prefer Hillary over loose cannon Trump, regardless of how strongly she'd want to regulate them.

Which is not very much. The foundation of DLC/Third Way is deference to Wall Street.

You can have your own personal opinion about how much she may or may not want to regulate them, but my point stands. As long as she doesn't intend on destroying the entire financial system, it's not hard to see why they'd back her as the lesser of two evils over a guy that dabbles in nonsensical, insane, and dangerous economic policy that could send us into a depression. I heard Wall Street CEOs breathe oxygen too, should we switch to nitrogen as a protest?

It's also worth noting...these people backed Jeb/Rubio/Walker etc. heavily. They would've backed Cruz heavily if he got the nomination. Yet, as the article shows, even now that Trump is the nominee many of them are still reluctant to commit to her. If she was such a Wall Street shill, they'd have been on her bandwagon for months, or would've jumped on it en masse immediately after Trump won the nomination. They don't want her because she's not going to push through their preferred legislation. Whether that is because of political calculation or genuine conviction is quite frankly irrelevant. Regardless, many of them correctly see her as the less risky choice.

[IceSpear]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

LOL, what?

LMAO, I didn't even notice this. Good old Wulfric...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

...

You think Hillary is too close to Wall Street...and you wish BLOOMBERG had run?

[RR1997]

What's so bad about being too close to Wall Street anyways?

[RaphaelDLG]

What's so bad about being too close to Wall Street anyways?

You were too young to remember probably, but you should read up on the 07-08 financial crisis that destroyed lives, wiped out pensions, depressed lifetime earnings for an entire demographic cohort, took trillions of dollars from the Fed/Treasury that contrary to popular belief was mostly not paid back... And fattened the pension funds of incompetent and fraudulent bankers.

Wall Street are not the prudent, wise, only mildly exploitative allocators of capital that they were in the 70s.  Bloomberg terminals and the internet have made information so ubiquitous that they turned from now low-margin stock picking and investment to inventing intentionally opaque, enourmously complicated and often fraudulent financial instruments to rip people off by paying ratings agencies to say that horrible investment vehicles are good ones and paying the government to give them free money when they suffer losses from being inappropriately overlevered.  What's worse, is these institutions are so large and interconnected and so overlevered and important to the economy that we almost have to bail them out when they collapse due to their own stupidity (as situation that was not at all fixed by Dodd Frank by the way - banking is still too big, too overlevered, and too opaque today).  This is complicated stuff, and I don't totally agree with this book, but the big short is a decent and easy to read explanation of what happened and why, though to tell a story it makes some people out to be heroes that aren't  really.

Bottom line, wall Street is not harnessing the. competitive power of capitalism to help America invest prudently anymore, it's mostly just using its political influence to rip people off and extract wealth and also it's so big that if it crashes itself it really matters to everyone in the world.  We need a good cop to regulate wall Street and make it about competition and investment again but it has thoroughly captured both political parties in DC with an army of lobbyists.

[RaphaelDLG]

So of course they'd prefer Hillary over loose cannon Trump, regardless of how strongly she'd want to regulate them.

Which is not very much. The foundation of DLC/Third Way is deference to Wall Street.

You can have your own personal opinion about how much she may or may not want to regulate them, but my point stands. As long as she doesn't intend on destroying the entire financial system, it's not hard to see why they'd back her as the lesser of two evils over a guy that dabbles in nonsensical, insane, and dangerous economic policy that could send us into a depression. I heard Wall Street CEOs breathe oxygen too, should we switch to nitrogen as a protest?

It's also worth noting...these people backed Jeb/Rubio/Walker etc. heavily. They would've backed Cruz heavily if he got the nomination. Yet, as the article shows, even now that Trump is the nominee many of them are still reluctant to commit to her. If she was such a Wall Street shill, they'd have been on her bandwagon for months, or would've jumped on it en masse immediately after Trump won the nomination. They don't want her because she's not going to push through their preferred legislation. Whether that is because of political calculation or genuine conviction is quite frankly irrelevant. Regardless, many of them correctly see her as the less risky choice.

Clearly Hillary is the rationale choice vs a madman who has no understanding of economics regardless of how tough she intends to be, but I don't find it credible for Hillary to accept this donation let alone seek it out. 

Either Hillary is naturally not very committed to changing the financial status quo or this donation will encourage her to not regulate them appropriately enough during her first term so she can win donations for her reelection bid.

This is very depressing because she can do it without this money and this is the only angle Trump can really semi-plausibly attack her

[RR1997]

What's so bad about being too close to Wall Street anyways?

You were too young to remember probably, but you should read up on the 07-08 financial crisis that destroyed lives, wiped out pensions, depressed lifetime earnings for an entire demographic cohort, took trillions of dollars from the Fed/Treasury that contrary to popular belief was mostly not paid back... And fattened the pension funds of incompetent and fraudulent bankers.

Wall Street are not the prudent, wise, only mildly exploitative allocators of capital that they were in the 70s.  Bloomberg terminals and the internet have made information so ubiquitous that they turned from now low-margin stock picking and investment to inventing intentionally opaque, enourmously complicated and often fraudulent financial instruments to rip people off by paying ratings agencies to say that horrible investment vehicles are good ones and paying the government to give them free money when they suffer losses from being inappropriately overlevered.  What's worse, is these institutions are so large and interconnected and so overlevered and important to the economy that we almost have to bail them out when they collapse due to their own stupidity (as situation that was not at all fixed by Dodd Frank by the way - banking is still too big, too overlevered, and too opaque today).  This is complicated stuff, and I don't totally agree with this book, but the big short is a decent and easy to read explanation of what happened and why, though to tell a story it makes some people out to be heroes that aren't  really.

Bottom line, wall Street is not harnessing the. competitive power of capitalism to help America invest prudently anymore, it's mostly just using its political influence to rip people off and extract wealth and also it's so big that if it crashes itself it really matters to everyone in the world.  We need a good cop to regulate wall Street and make it about competition and investment again but it has thoroughly captured both political parties in DC with an army of lobbyists.

1. I was absolutely not too young to remember the 2008 recession. We shouldn't only blame Wall Street for the crisis. We should also blame the homeowners for accepting mortgages they couldn't afford. We need to blame financially irresponsible homeowners. Yes, Subprime Mortgages were a disgusting way to make money, but not everyone who worked on Wall Street took part in causing the recession. There are plenty of ethical financiers.

2. Overall, Wall Street does add value to the economy. Investment banks play a vital role in the economy by proving clients with strategic financial advisory. Investment banks assist companies in mergers and acquisitions, help companies restructure, etc. Venture capitalists help startup companies grow. Private equity firms add value to the companies they buy. Hedge funds help manage risk and make money for their investors. Of course there are plenty of corrupt financiers who'll screw over thousands just for money, but not all of them are bad. Just like how not all lawyers, cops, etc. are bad. It's silly to generalize a whole profession.

3. There are no reasonable arguments against TARP. If we didn't bail out the large banks, the recession would've turned into a depression. These investments banks are too big to fail. Bailing out the financial institutions was a horrendous necessity. I agree that we should've arrested the bankers that caused the crisis. I agree that we should've broken up the banks.

I'm just tired of liberals criticizing every politicians with ties to Wall Street. For example, Hillary recently spoke at Goldman Sachs. She was praising Goldman Sachs for starting a program to help female entrepreneurs all across the world, and the left started to complain about this just because she spoke at Goldman Sachs. So what?! She's just praising Goldman Sachs for helping female entrepreneurs. Not everyone at Goldman Sachs is evil. I'm tired of Bernie supporters criticizing Hillary for stupid things like this. Hillary should pick Lloyd Blankfein (the CEO of Goldman Sachs who is a Democrat) as her VP just to anger them lol.

[Chief Justice Keef]

With her Wall Street pandering and courting of Bush donors, Clinton would make a great Republican candidate.

[RR1997]

So of course they'd prefer Hillary over loose cannon Trump, regardless of how strongly she'd want to regulate them.

Which is not very much. The foundation of DLC/Third Way is deference to Wall Street.

You can have your own personal opinion about how much she may or may not want to regulate them, but my point stands. As long as she doesn't intend on destroying the entire financial system, it's not hard to see why they'd back her as the lesser of two evils over a guy that dabbles in nonsensical, insane, and dangerous economic policy that could send us into a depression. I heard Wall Street CEOs breathe oxygen too, should we switch to nitrogen as a protest?

It's also worth noting...these people backed Jeb/Rubio/Walker etc. heavily. They would've backed Cruz heavily if he got the nomination. Yet, as the article shows, even now that Trump is the nominee many of them are still reluctant to commit to her. If she was such a Wall Street shill, they'd have been on her bandwagon for months, or would've jumped on it en masse immediately after Trump won the nomination. They don't want her because she's not going to push through their preferred legislation. Whether that is because of political calculation or genuine conviction is quite frankly irrelevant. Regardless, many of them correctly see her as the less risky choice.

^^^^^
This

[Virginiá]

I really hope users on this forum do not begin thinking that just because she goes after traditional GOP donors, that she is some Republican-lite or a center-right candidate, or whatever bs one can think of.

She is going after them because her opponent's party is currently imploding and the best move would be to court their donors and their voters. You would have to be an idiot not to do this. It's the single best chance to not only develop a serious cash advantage but also expand the Democratic party. It doesn't mean she cares for conservative policy, it just means she is taking advantage of their current weaknesses.

I'm already seeing this broken logic (from beginning of my post) spread. It's like some people are incapable of understanding politics and the very simplest of election strategy.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

[RaphaelDLG]

I really hope users on this forum do not begin thinking that just because she goes after traditional GOP donors, that she is some Republican-lite or a center-right candidate, or whatever bs one can think of.

She is going after them because her opponent's party is currently imploding and the best move would be to court their donors and their voters. You would have to be an idiot not to do this. It's the single best chance to not only develop a serious cash advantage but also expand the Democratic party. It doesn't mean she cares for conservative policy, it just means she is taking advantage of their current weaknesses.

I'm already seeing this broken logic (from beginning of my post) spread. It's like some people are incapable of understanding politics and the very simplest of election strategy.

Do you think she will seriously take their money and then turn around alienate them by harshly regulating them?  It flies in the face of human nature, common sense, etc.

If Hillary was seriously thinking about taking their money and scamming them and being like hahaha screw you or saying you will support me, I will regulate you, and you'll like it, or else then yeah that'd be great but that's not a credible possibility based on her personal record or human nature.  I should add that for the record I like Hillary's plans better than sanders' generally speaking but she's just not very credible and moves like this don't make her seem more trustworthy on this issue.

[RaphaelDLG]

What's so bad about being too close to Wall Street anyways?

You were too young to remember probably, but you should read up on the 07-08 financial crisis that destroyed lives, wiped out pensions, depressed lifetime earnings for an entire demographic cohort, took trillions of dollars from the Fed/Treasury that contrary to popular belief was mostly not paid back... And fattened the pension funds of incompetent and fraudulent bankers.

Wall Street are not the prudent, wise, only mildly exploitative allocators of capital that they were in the 70s.  Bloomberg terminals and the internet have made information so ubiquitous that they turned from now low-margin stock picking and investment to inventing intentionally opaque, enourmously complicated and often fraudulent financial instruments to rip people off by paying ratings agencies to say that horrible investment vehicles are good ones and paying the government to give them free money when they suffer losses from being inappropriately overlevered.  What's worse, is these institutions are so large and interconnected and so overlevered and important to the economy that we almost have to bail them out when they collapse due to their own stupidity (as situation that was not at all fixed by Dodd Frank by the way - banking is still too big, too overlevered, and too opaque today).  This is complicated stuff, and I don't totally agree with this book, but the big short is a decent and easy to read explanation of what happened and why, though to tell a story it makes some people out to be heroes that aren't  really.

Bottom line, wall Street is not harnessing the. competitive power of capitalism to help America invest prudently anymore, it's mostly just using its political influence to rip people off and extract wealth and also it's so big that if it crashes itself it really matters to everyone in the world.  We need a good cop to regulate wall Street and make it about competition and investment again but it has thoroughly captured both political parties in DC with an army of lobbyists.

1. I was absolutely not too young to remember the 2008 recession. We shouldn't only blame Wall Street for the crisis. We should also blame the homeowners for accepting mortgages they couldn't afford. We need to blame financially irresponsible homeowners. Yes, Subprime Mortgages were a disgusting way to make money, but not everyone who worked on Wall Street took part in causing the recession. There are plenty of ethical financiers.

2. Overall, Wall Street does add value to the economy. Investment banks play a vital role in the economy by proving clients with strategic financial advisory. Investment banks assist companies in mergers and acquisitions, help companies restructure, etc. Venture capitalists help startup companies grow. Private equity firms add value to the companies they buy. Hedge funds help manage risk and make money for their investors. Of course there are plenty of corrupt financiers who'll screw over thousands just for money, but not all of them are bad. Just like how not all lawyers, cops, etc. are bad. It's silly to generalize a whole profession.

3. There are no reasonable arguments against TARP. If we didn't bail out the large banks, the recession would've turned into a depression. These investments banks are too big to fail. Bailing out the financial institutions was a horrendous necessity. I agree that we should've arrested the bankers that caused the crisis. I agree that we should've broken up the banks.

I'm just tired of liberals criticizing every politicians with ties to Wall Street. For example, Hillary recently spoke at Goldman Sachs. She was praising Goldman Sachs for starting a program to help female entrepreneurs all across the world, and the left started to complain about this just because she spoke at Goldman Sachs. So what?! She's just praising Goldman Sachs for helping female entrepreneurs. Not everyone at Goldman Sachs is evil. I'm tired of Bernie supporters criticizing Hillary for stupid things like this. Hillary should pick Lloyd Blankfein (the CEO of Goldman Sachs who is a Democrat) as her VP just to anger them lol.

1.  You can blame the homeowner but the  bottom line is those irresponsible crappy loans would NEVER have been originated if firms like goldman didn't see a quick buck to be made in packaging them as bonds and CDOs and then passing them off to SUCKERS like AIG and... Pension funds    so that they wouldn't be stuck with them when the homeowners the they coached to take these loans inevitably defaulted.

2. Of course there are good people on WS especially in certain sectors but often times the good people get fired and replaced by people willing to be dishonest and exploit the lack of rule enforcement.  The system overall is undeniably sick and needs to get back to real healthy 21st century capitalist competition not opaque instruments that are less about adding value and more about screwing people


3.  We needed to infuse liquidity into our banking system but you can make an argument that if we were going to consequence free reward fraudsters and idiots and set ourselves up for another crash that we shouldn't have done it.  Tarp was the tip of the iceberg of free money that the Fed gave WS.

[Lief 🗽]

Wasn't one of Bernie's big selling points that he could win over independents and Republicans in a general? But when Clinton does the same she's an awful corporate right-wing neoliberal? LOL

[Virginiá]

I really hope users on this forum do not begin thinking that just because she goes after traditional GOP donors, that she is some Republican-lite or a center-right candidate, or whatever bs one can think of.

She is going after them because her opponent's party is currently imploding and the best move would be to court their donors and their voters. You would have to be an idiot not to do this. It's the single best chance to not only develop a serious cash advantage but also expand the Democratic party. It doesn't mean she cares for conservative policy, it just means she is taking advantage of their current weaknesses.

I'm already seeing this broken logic (from beginning of my post) spread. It's like some people are incapable of understanding politics and the very simplest of election strategy.

Do you think she will seriously take their money and then turn around alienate them by harshly regulating them?  It flies in the face of human nature, common sense, etc.

If Hillary was seriously thinking about taking their money and scamming them and being like hahaha screw you or saying you will support me, I will regulate you, and you'll like it, or else then yeah that'd be great but that's not a credible possibility based on her personal record or human nature.  I should add that for the record I like Hillary's plans better than sanders' generally speaking but she's just not very credible and moves like this don't make her seem more trustworthy on this issue.

Well, as Hillary herself has stated many times, Obama took lots of special interest money and still got Dodd-Frank through. Sure, it could have been better, but there is a limit when Congressional votes are at stake.

I do believe donors can influence, but I think she will stick to what she says more or less. With significant donor influence, I would only expect watered-down versions of various legislation. I am more worried about members of Congress being bought off, because it takes a lot less money to do that. Presidential campaigns take in enormous amounts of money, so it would take a truly staggering high-value donation to "buy" serious favors that the people would really care about, and that is assuming that she is even open to it.

Finally, Hillary doesn't really need these donors. She can take their money now, then turn her back on them and she'll be fine come 2020. No one would have expected that these donors would be a possible grab back last year, so really it's just icing on the cake.

She still needs votes at the end of the day, and if she doesn't deliver to her voters, she won't win reelection. Hillary doesn't have the same appeal as Obama, so in order to win over voters after her election, she will need to deliver on policy. It isn't, nor can it be, all about the donors.

Wasn't one of Bernie's big selling points that he could win over independents and Republicans in a general? But when Clinton does the same she's an awful corporate right-wing neoliberal? LOL

Yes. Double-standards and stupidly-large amounts of bias are rampant among competing candidate's supporters.

[Santander]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

Quit feigning shock. Plenty of people do this and it's perfectly valid.

[Lief 🗽]

This is why I wish there was an acceptable third party option, like Webb or Bloomberg. Hillary cannot last five seconds without revealing how much she loves wall street, and TRUMP is Hitler 2.0 .

Honestly, if Austin Petersen (L) wasn't atheist, I would be considering supporting him. (Johnson is an absolute nut with his 43% across the board spending cut and a bunch of other things, #NEVERJOHNSON)

Wait, what? Are you not voting for someone because of his religion?

Quit feigning shock. Plenty of people do this and it's perfectly valid.

...perfectly valid if you're a bigot

[RaphaelDLG]

I really hope users on this forum do not begin thinking that just because she goes after traditional GOP donors, that she is some Republican-lite or a center-right candidate, or whatever bs one can think of.

She is going after them because her opponent's party is currently imploding and the best move would be to court their donors and their voters. You would have to be an idiot not to do this. It's the single best chance to not only develop a serious cash advantage but also expand the Democratic party. It doesn't mean she cares for conservative policy, it just means she is taking advantage of their current weaknesses.

I'm already seeing this broken logic (from beginning of my post) spread. It's like some people are incapable of understanding politics and the very simplest of election strategy.

Do you think she will seriously take their money and then turn around alienate them by harshly regulating them?  It flies in the face of human nature, common sense, etc.

If Hillary was seriously thinking about taking their money and scamming them and being like hahaha screw you or saying you will support me, I will regulate you, and you'll like it, or else then yeah that'd be great but that's not a credible possibility based on her personal record or human nature.  I should add that for the record I like Hillary's plans better than sanders' generally speaking but she's just not very credible and moves like this don't make her seem more trustworthy on this issue.

Well, as Hillary herself has stated many times, Obama took lots of special interest money and still got Dodd-Frank through. Sure, it could have been better, but there is a limit when Congressional votes are at stake.

I do believe donors can influence, but I think she will stick to what she says more or less. With significant donor influence, I would only expect watered-down versions of various legislation. I am more worried about members of Congress being bought off, because it takes a lot less money to do that. Presidential campaigns take in enormous amounts of money, so it would take a truly staggering high-value donation to "buy" serious favors that the people would really care about, and that is assuming that she is even open to it.

Finally, Hillary doesn't really need these donors. She can take their money now, then turn her back on them and she'll be fine come 2020. No one would have expected that these donors would be a possible grab back last year, so really it's just icing on the cake.

She still needs votes at the end of the day, and if she doesn't deliver to her voters, she won't win reelection. Hillary doesn't have the same appeal as Obama, so in order to win over voters after her election, she will need to deliver on policy. It isn't, nor can it be, all about the donors.

Wasn't one of Bernie's big selling points that he could win over independents and Republicans in a general? But when Clinton does the same she's an awful corporate right-wing neoliberal? LOL

Yes. Double-standards and stupidly-large amounts of bias are rampant among competing candidate's supporters.

I don't think Lief's obvious troll comment is remotely fair BC the way that Bernie Sanders appeals to Ind and Rep VOTERS not donors is BC of his populist views which match the sense of anger Indies and reps feel about what went down in 08.

As to your broader point, I really hope you are right and will be delighted if you are.  Based on what I've seen, im not optimistic.  Again, she doesn't need this cash and will murder Trump if she doesn't get too cute by doing things like this