The Wall Street vultures picking at Main Street's corpse are all-in for Hillary Clinton

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
First the Koch's, now this guy. Financial parasites are in love with their biggest fan: Hillary Clinton

Wall Street is buying Main Street one foreclosed home at a time.

The houses—more than 200,000 of them—are then rented to folks who continue to struggle in the aftermath of a near financial collapse in 2008.

And one of the leading figures in Wall Street’s scavenging of the wreckage created by Wall Street is also a big time backer of Hillary Clinton.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/the-guy-who-screwed-america-s-economy-hearts-hillary-clinton.html
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
First the Koch's, now this guy. Financial parasites are in love with their biggest fan: Hillary Clinton...
Yep, her marked centrism makes her attractive to SuperPAC donors. It's worth noting that Mullen is one of 146 people who have donated to the Clintons for each of their federal races, so they have a relationship going back to 1992.

I think we're all aware at this point that Clinton gets Wall Street money, and that she has little incentive to do anything the financial system if she wins the White House.

However, before we get too excited, it's worth noting that hedge fund manager Robert Mercer gave $2M to a SuperPAC supporting Ted Cruz and Paul Singer dropped $1.5M into the coffers of a hedge fund opposing Donald Trump.

And, according to OpenSecrets.org, the candidate who is most reliant on SuperPACs is Sen. Ted Cruz. The least reliant figure is Bernie Sanders, who gets all but a tiny percentage of donations through direct campaign contributions, often through small donors.
 

thermodynamic

Suspended
May 3, 2009
1,336
1,175
USA
except Bernie's
:)

I dunno - assuming every politician addressing working class issues is sincere, and chances are they are, there's still enough compromising, obstruction (for legitimate reasons or otherwise), that I'm not sure much is going to change, or even there reasons for the continued gridlock.

Dunno how things are going to go, am looking forward to the debates, and I've honestly not made up my mind on whom to vote for at this time. Each has issues of value, each has issues one can readily disagree on.

I find it fascinating, if the polls hold true, how Democrats seem to be staying at home whereas Republicans are far more energetic. Haven't seen much on what the Independents are doing, and they comprise all sorts of groups in between.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
:)

I dunno - assuming every politician addressing working class issues is sincere, and chances are they are, there's still enough compromising, obstruction (for legitimate reasons or otherwise), that I'm not sure much is going to change, or even there reasons for the continued gridlock.

Dunno how things are going to go, am looking forward to the debates, and I've honestly not made up my mind on whom to vote for at this time. Each has issues of value, each has issues one can readily disagree on.

I find it fascinating, if the polls hold true, how Democrats seem to be staying at home whereas Republicans are far more energetic. Haven't seen much on what the Independents are doing, and they comprise all sorts of groups in between.
Less than 1 percent of Sanders' campaign contributions come from outside donors, so it's fairly spectacular to see that he's holding his own against Clinton's machine, even if she can outspend him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

Robisan

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2014
337
2,035
This guy Mullen is a real prince. Obama's handling of Wall Street and the mortgage crisis was/is disgraceful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
This guy Mullen is a real prince. Obama's handling of Wall Street and the mortgage crisis was/is disgraceful.
The Obama administration passed two pieces of legislation, Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act that were aimed at regulating Wall Street. And, the Federal Reserve followed international regulations by requiring higher capital mandates for banks.

So, while the Obama administration has failed to prosecute bankers and traders for the financial crisis—the SEC remains fantastically toothless—the White House nonetheless did attempt some reforms.

Meanwhile, a recalcitrant Congress has spent most of its time playing stupid games with the CFPB and has refused to pass its own reforms.

So, the failure to prosecute or regulate Wall Street is a bipartisan problem that won't be solved until we get a good candidate for president, and a Congress that's worth a damn.

I wouldn't hold my breath.
 

duffman9000

macrumors 68000
Sep 7, 2003
1,887
5,362
Deep in the Depths of CA
  • Like
Reactions: Renzatic

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
I don't know who I despise more: Hillary or the rest of the GOP nominees. It's close but I still pick Hillary.

Two-Face would cry foul over Hillary.
That's the painful aspect. Hillary is a terrible candidate, until you look across the aisle and realize that the GOP is going to cough up either Donald "Border Wall" Trump, or Ted "Stop the Dildos" Cruz. But, both Republican candidates are busily selling GOP bong water.

So, while Hillary remains a candidate who makes my teeth grind, she positively shines next to the parade of bozos and idiots the GOP keeps sending into the spotlight.

I picked Bernie. But, I also know I have a penchant for lost causes and suicide missions.
 

Robisan

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2014
337
2,035
So, while the Obama administration has failed to prosecute bankers and traders for the financial crisis—the SEC remains fantastically toothless—the White House nonetheless did attempt some reforms.
David Dayen has been all over the mortgage crisis issues. Click any link and be prepared to have your blood boil. The Obama Administration essentially allowed mortgage servicers to steal people's homes. Geithner's Treasury Dept. had $10's of billions in hand (no congressional interference) that could've been used to help underwater borrowers and instead turned HAMP into a government sanctioned predatory lending scheme. It's really indefensible and disgraceful.
 

duffman9000

macrumors 68000
Sep 7, 2003
1,887
5,362
Deep in the Depths of CA
David Dayen has been all over the mortgage crisis issues. Click any link and be prepared to have your blood boil. The Obama Administration essentially allowed mortgage servicers to steal people's homes. Geithner's Treasury Dept. had $10's of billions in hand (no congressional interference) that could've been used to help underwater borrowers and instead turned HAMP into a government sanctioned predatory lending scheme. It's really indefensible and disgraceful.
My blood boiled for so many years that it eventually vaporized leaving behind only anger. My solution to the mortgage crisis would have been death or death by exile to the people responsible.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
The Obama administration passed two pieces of legislation, Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act that were aimed at regulating Wall Street. And, the Federal Reserve followed international regulations by requiring higher capital mandates for banks.

So, while the Obama administration has failed to prosecute bankers and traders for the financial crisis—the SEC remains fantastically toothless—the White House nonetheless did attempt some reforms.
Dodd-Frank didn't reform anything. Banks are even more TBTF than they were in 2007.

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-wall-street-defanged-dodd-frank/
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
David Dayen has been all over the mortgage crisis issues. Click any link and be prepared to have your blood boil. The Obama Administration essentially allowed mortgage servicers to steal people's homes. Geithner's Treasury Dept. had $10's of billions in hand (no congressional interference) that could've been used to help underwater borrowers and instead turned HAMP into a government sanctioned predatory lending scheme. It's really indefensible and disgraceful.
It is disgraceful and it needs to be fixed. I'm not attempting to defend the Obama administration in this regard, but rather note that for all their failures and stupidity, the White House was attempting to fix a problem. Congress has had access to much of this information and has dithered or actively fought reforms.

Dodd-Frank didn't reform anything. Banks are even more TBTF than they were in 2007.

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-wall-street-defanged-dodd-frank/
I won't disagree. Dodd-Frank is crap, but in terms of the political dichotomy, which party do you think is going to fix Wall Street?

Congress has failed, either by abrogating its responsibilities or by actively advocating for bad policies. Don't let the presidential election eclipse the failure of the House and Senate.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
It is disgraceful and it needs to be fixed. I'm not attempting to defend the Obama administration in this regard, but rather note that for all their failures and stupidity, the White House was attempting to fix a problem. Congress has had access to much of this information and has dithered or actively fought reforms.



I won't disagree. Dodd-Frank is crap, but in terms of the political dichotomy, which party do you think is going to fix Wall Street?

Congress has failed, either by abrogating its responsibilities or by actively advocating for bad policies. Don't let the presidential election eclipse the failure of the House and Senate.
You are making an incorrect assumption that Obama was trying to fix the problem. They were doing nothing of the sort. Dodd-Frank only enables the government and Wall Street to get bigger and have more power. All this while the average middle class voter continues to get screwed. Republicans weren't going to do any better.

Do you know what would have really reformed the banks? And swiftly I might add? The free market. The free market would have bankrupted most of these institutions in 2008 and real reform would have taken place as new management would have been brought in by the shareholders to not repeat the same mistakes. Banks would have become more conservative knowing the government wouldn't have bailed them out. But instead, the government saved them from themselves so they can continue their reckless and corrupt behavior.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,230
quae tangit perit Trump
You are making an incorrect assumption that Obama was trying to fix the problem. They were doing nothing of the sort. Dodd-Frank only enables the government and Wall Street to get bigger and have more power. All this while the average middle class voter continues to get screwed. Republicans weren't going to do any better.

Do you know what would have really reformed the banks? And swiftly I might add? The free market. The free market would have bankrupted most of these institutions in 2008 and real reform would have taken place as new management would have been brought in by the shareholders to not repeat the same mistakes. Banks would have become more conservative knowing the government wouldn't have bailed them out. But instead, the government saved them from themselves so they can continue their reckless and corrupt behavior.
I disagree a bit. Obama administration officials were trying to fix the problem, but failed. I do agree that Republicans "weren't going to do any better."

As for your argument about the use of laissez-faire policies. I've looked at much of the arguments presented by folks at sites like Zero Hedge, and often I see strongly made arguments, but there remains a decided lack of convincing evidence that such a policy would have worked quickly or effectively.

The economic fallout would have been immense, and there are numerous economic models that show that allowing the system to free fall would have destroyed not only the banks, but the investment portfolios of pension funds, 401Ks, etc.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
I disagree a bit. Obama administration officials were trying to fix the problem, but failed. I do agree that Republicans "weren't going to do any better."

As for your argument about the use of laissez-faire policies. I've looked at much of the arguments presented by folks at sites like Zero Hedge, and often I see strongly made arguments, but there remains a decided lack of convincing evidence that such a policy would have worked quickly or effectively.

The economic fallout would have been immense, and there are numerous economic models that show that allowing the system to free fall would have destroyed not only the banks, but the investment portfolios of pension funds, 401Ks, etc.
Obama outsourced the solution to Congress. Both Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were culpable in creating the financial crisis and were thoroughly corrupted by Wall Street before legislation was even written.

You are falling for the propaganda that the entire economy would have failed if we didn't bail out the big banks. That buy in from you the voter and the average MOC was necessary to pass TARP.

David Stockman has written at length about how the crisis would have been easily limited to Wall Street and not affected Main Street.

All the evidence I need is to see what's happened 7 years after the crisis. Wall Street is richer and more powerful while Main Street is not. It's time to give laissez-faire a chance and remove the cozy relationship between Wall Street and the Federal government.
 

aaronvan

Suspended
Original poster
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda