General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHas Hillary Clinton stated how she feels about Glass-Steagall?
Or has she ever called for the prosecution of anyone on Wall Street for breaking our economy?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CTBlueboy
(154 posts)The same people that pay for her "special speeches"
and watch the counter response be " how the repeal of Glass Steagall was beneficial" like they did with NAFTA or TPP
MisterP
(23,730 posts)for "fauxgressives" who are serving Rove's agenda and yap yap yap
this sort of rule by content-free threats is what lost them 2010 and '14, so they had to hallucinate some abstentionist campaign that HAD to be responsible for the low Dem turnout; '10 they even blamed on the gays!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)reasons for the decline in the middle class. Without this law their life time savings was combined with all the rest of the bank assets and put into the Wall Street casino. Worked for a while but then along come the Great Recession a casino game if there ever was one. It is the same game they want when they try to privatize Social Security.
This is a legitimate question.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)have come out against it and I believe both have questioned why no one from Wall Street has been prosecuted.
And, Bill Clinton is the president who repealed Glass-Steagall.
I don't think I've ever heard of Hillary coming out against it or for Wall Street prosecutions.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Read Nomi Prins' All the Presidents' Bankers for the whole sordid story.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)All together that triple threat dealt a heavy blow to the middle class, I am not sure if it was a mortal wound - but it surely was a crippleling one.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)talked about what protections we had against another Great Depression. He based his analysis on Glass-Steagal. I don't know if it can do the same thing now that they Rs and some Democrats have deregulated banking but it is worth a try. Dodd-Frank did not go far enough.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)it dismantled an important brake on the power of banks to create currency
we should probably not forget Nixon closing the gold window when we talk about Glass-Steagall, they are intimately linked as major enablers of banking hegemony - once everything became a game of numbers with no tie to physical reality (e.g. actual gold supplies or actual deposits at banks), the banks were able to do anything they wanted with no practical limits
jwirr
(39,215 posts)the biggest reasons the bankers do not want to break up the banks into littler units is to hide this fact.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Here's a "no" …. and… another "no". No crackerjacks to be found in THOSE two answers! 
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)about organizing a focus group of Wall Street contributors to the Clinton Foundation to determine what her options are.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)America could use a recommendation to convene a blue ribbon panel right about now.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)We may have to settle for yellow, white or pink in the interest of the budget.
Place......... ribbon
First place blue ribbon
Second place red ribbon
Third place yellow ribbon
Fourth place white ribbon
Fifth place pink ribbon
Sixth place green ribbon
Seventh place purple ribbon
Eighth place brown ribbon
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The Toilet Paper Protocol.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Anyway, given the rumored bulk of that thing, it shouldn't be so hard to put it to its best use, although I admit it would be nice if they print it on fairly soft paper.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)considering it.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)
FSogol
(45,448 posts)But we cannot rebuild the American Dream here at home by catering to the voices of the privileged and the powerful.
Let's be honest. They were the ones who turned our economy upside-down in the first place. And they are the only ones who are benefiting from it.
We need to prosecute cheats, we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and if a bank is too big to fail without wrecking our nation's economy, then it needs to be broken up before it breaks us again.
Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton.
I bet he would.
Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street.
The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.
It is a sacred trust to be earned from the people of the United States, and exercised on behalf of the people of the United States.
The only way we are going to rebuild the American Dream is if we re-take control of our own American government!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I love this. Of course we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. FDR did it against all odds & against a very powerful Wall Street at the time, it can be done. It needs to be done for many reasons, all of which protect citizens & our economy.
And we DO need to take back control of our govt.
I'm starting to really like this guy!
(I like Bernie too!!)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)So far I think she's the only Dem candidate who hasn't come out in favor of reinstating GS or prosecuting those who wrecked our economy, but I wasn't sure, so I asked.
So far there is no answer. I'd ask in the HCR but I've been banned for criticizing not her, but a thread that called for HRC supporters to tattle on DU Sanders supporters by emailing him link to all the mean comments from them on DU. You can't make this stuff up.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton."
Sancho
(9,067 posts)At any rate, her voting record (even though she represented Wall Street as a Senator), is easily available. A little more conservative than Obama, and more recently since she left office she has met with Warren and adopted some of Warren's language on the campaign trail.
Hillary has been the main voice for income equality - likely one of the biggest battles that would affect Americans.
I think Glass-Steagall was (in part) repealed in 1999? I think Hillary because a Senator in 2001. She did not vote on the repeal, even though Bill Clinton signed it.
It has been reported (I heard it on NPR) that Hillary met with Obama and agreed not to criticize his current efforts and he would not criticize her campaign efforts. So far, that includes the TPP, Obama's efforts to get Wall Street to pay fines, education policy (different than Hillary's) and Obama's mid-East policy on his side.
On her side, it includes a "path to citizenship" for immigrants, a litmus test for SC judges to repeal Citizens United, and her call for equal pay for women (which Obama could do more with as an executive order for federal employees and contracts).
It's unlikely they will not keep their agreement as long as it benefits them both and the Democratic party over the next couple years. As such, she will eventually get into details on issues closer to the election, and after the primary (if she wins).
cali
(114,904 posts)is, all at once, funny, shameful, ironic and patently false. That quite the achievement. And the crap about her cutting a deal with Obama? Sickening if true,and it just looks like a cowardly attempt to avoid taking positions on difficult issues. That is not leadership, and she sure isn't a leader in the fight against income inequality. Revisionist history is you.
Oh, and take your bullshit all criticism of HRC is right wing and....
Who are you to run around calling duers members of the right wing? That's a no-no, btw.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)If Obama and Hillary have a strategy that's reported on, then that's fine with me. Seems to be working.
If anything Cali, you "protest too much"!
You can feel free to argue against any and all reporting that you don't like. There are some who will always disagree with media, polls, or evidence they dislike it.
Your opinion is that Hillary is "not a leader". She has decades of historical evidence that she has been a leader on many progressive issues for many years. It's part of the record. You may not like what issues she chose or the positions she took, but lack of leadership is not a problem. The only candidate who has not tackled difficult issues is Bernie. A path to citizenship is issue #1. The out of control Supreme Court is issue #2. Not a peep from Sanders in the past or recently. Wall Street is an easy target frankly. Easy to criticize. What to do about it is easy too. Hell, you and I could recommend new banking regulations at this point. Leadership is willingness to take on tough problems where solutions aren't obvious. Just my humble opinion.
The link I posted seems pretty applicable to many OP's that I see...I'm simply asking if people aren't falling into the GOP trap described in the article. I will continue to suggest that the Hillary bashing is helping her, so the plan is not working. If anything, people see through the BS and it gains support for Hillary.
OTOH, I hope DUers realize that sometimes they are being used a pawns if you read the linked article. If I know that someone is a troll, I'll deal with it. I assume you are smart enough not to fall for the RW plan as described in the article.
cali
(114,904 posts)You and I disagree about Clinton. But calling her the main voice in the fight against economic inequality is just bizarre.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Am I Donald Rumsfeld? No.
I'm asking if she's spoken about re-instating Glass-Steagall. I think that's a very important issue and we need this type of regulation back. The banks have only gotten bigger since the bail out. So we need to take care of this very soon. I know it was Bill Clinton who repealed GS, all the more important for Hillary to tell us her position on it or to speak to reinstating it if she thinks it's important. I would like to know where she stands.
And I wonder if she's said anything about prosecuting the banksters because I believe both O'Malley and Sanders have, so I would like to know her positions.
You know, the big meme on DU is that Sanders supporters are big meanies, but here I ask a question about Hillary and you attack me as a "RW Hillary basher". Why? What in my OP was RW or bashing?
As to some of your comments... Can you show me where Hillary had been the main voice of income equality? Did she support the Occupy movement then?
...
It's unlikely they will not keep their agreement as long as it benefits them both and the Democratic party over the next couple years. As such, she will eventually get into details on issues closer to the election, and after the primary (if she wins).
Interesting. That's just awful. So she's already making deals in order to keep her campaign safe from criticism and those deals involve her not letting the public know how she stands on major policies/issues? Wow! HUGE red flag there. Those are some big issues that affect the American people, her making a deal to not speak to them in order to avoid criticism from POTUS is a sign to me that she cares more about winning the presidency than she does about the people she wants to preside over. Thanks for the info.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)If you look at Hillary's Senate record, there are some that are related to banking regulations, but nothing as big as Glass-Stegall. She did not appear to agree with Bill Clinton in every case.
As the Senator from NY representing Wall Street, she was unlikely to take the repeal of a law from 1933, repealed in 1999, and in 2000 as a junior Senator put forward a bill to go after the constituents she represented before the 2008 crash. As SoS, it was not her job.
In recent months, she has met with several people including Warren. Presumably she is considering a platform that will change regulations on banks and Wall Street. I also would urge caution.
First, we see some fines coming down now - so there still could be some prosecutions. Even she had inside information that the CEO of Goldman Sachs was going to be hauled off tomorrow, would she publicly say so? I personally don't want to see the stock market go to hell. I represent a bunch of state employees here in FL when we bargain contracts. Our retirements are all in those big state funds. I don't like what Jeb and Scott do to us, but if those banks are "broken up", it might be for for politics, but also kill the retirements and mortgages of lots of rank and file workers. Regulation and prosecution without killing the banks would be preferable. I also don't want a transaction tax passed onto the retirements of state and union employees.
I suspect, but don't know, that Hillary is carefully looking at what could be realistically done about Wall Street banks - and simply putting people in jail and replacing them with whoever is number 2 won't fix anything. She has made general statement about trade agreements, banking regulations, and mortgages, but no specific calls to go after any particular targets yet that I know of.
As far as political strategy. All I can say is that Bill, Obama, and now Hillary seem pretty successful.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Why doesn't she have one already? If someone wants to be president, they should already know why, imo. I understand needing to strategize how to get the message out and the politics of that, but the positions should already be formed, especially by someone with her resume.
You spoke of trade agreements, I'd love to hear her come out about the TPP. But if what you said above is true, then she won't let us know what she thinks in order to avoid any possible counter from Obama. So either she made a deal because she thinks to win it's best for her to not get criticized by Obama so she won't bother telling the people what she thinks, or it's a ploy to allow people to think she disagrees with him but won't say it due to a deal. Either way, she's not telling the people where she stands.
I think if you are running for office, the main thing you need to do is speak to the people who you are going to represent about how you are planning on representing them.
With so much of the new wealth (90% or something) going to the top 1%, that's a huge issue. I think it would behoove her to speak out about what she plans to do about that.
Being a successful politician doesn't mean much as far as whether you are going to govern in favor of the people. BC is the one who repealed Glass-Steagall and who did a lot of other things that hurt working people. PBO is the one who offered up SS and is fighting hard for the TPP. I don't want anyone who is going to continue that direction to be successful in this presidential race.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)If Hillary is successful or not is yet to be seen.
Do you really think that debates with the GOP candidate will happen without a party platform or questions about trade agreements!? You'll get an answer. You may or may not agree with it, but there will be an answer. Hillary has not even had her announcement rally (June 16 I heard). Maybe you'll hear more then.
She's doing what every modern politician from Kennedy to Obama has done...you develop a platform with planks your party will support, that will get you elected, and are realistic promises. If the party won't support you or it's a crazy promise, then it's better to be vague.
They can be big promises: like "path to citizenship", but they have to be possible.
What are the odds that college will be "free". Remember that colleges are a state function. Look at the problems with heath care and rebellious states!! That's an almost impossible goal for Bernie to put forward.
I'd bet Hillary has a draft of a platform, but putting out too many details too early is simply a target for the critics. We know that "equal pay for women" is on the list. Also, she will reform education. That's already on the list.
I think TPP is so big and so complex that no one can say what parts to agree with...and it's secret...and whatever Hillary knows she is under oath not to reveal! So...she's not going to come out with a complex statement that she disagrees with slave labor, but thinks it's ok to inspect beef, but not ok to import GMO's, but it's one to have HB1 visas, etc., etc...
It's actually a little premature to be "against" or "for" TPP - it is certainly ok to be AGAINST a secret process that no one can see. Hillary has says she's against trade agreements that cost American jobs.
Also, she worked for Obama and they get along. As long as he's trying to pass TPP, she will not openly go against it. She may express reservations about parts of it, so complain about currency manipulation, but not say, "Obama's an idiot."
I'd bet that TPP will pass or fail before the election anyway, so it may be a mute point. Not much any candidate can do about it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Well I sure want to know how someone feels about it if I'm going to consider voting for them. If it has already passed that means the TPA will be in place for the next POTUS. You don't think that's an issue? I want to know the position of every candidate on this especially if this has happened.
I'm not going to wait until someone is elected to see where they stand. That's like the silly we have to pass it to know what's in it scenario. Not going to fly.
And you say it's better to be vague than to state what you believe in. I'm sorry, but that's not how democracy is supposed to work. The people are supposed to be given a choice based on what the candidates are pledging to do if elected. The candidate is not supposed to be gaming the race in order to win without letting people know what they really stand for. And if that's how the candidate operates they do not deserve the people's vote.
So, basically you are telling me that Hillary has not spoken out about a lot of issues yet. She's made a deal with Obama to not criticize him so that he won't criticize her. She hasn't taken a firm stand on something that led to our economic downfall.
How are people deciding they want to vote for her?
Sancho
(9,067 posts)she said she had supported some of them and not others. She said this one wasn't finished yet, but she would not support any agreement that cost American's jobs. She is legally prevented from discussing details that she knows from her S0S job about the TPP regardless of her cooperation with Obama.
You can see the videos of her discussions anytime you'd like.
This TPP will likely be over and done with before the next President takes office, one way or another.
Regardless, when details are revealed, that's a good time to debate the details.
There is no question that during campaigning and debates, Hillary will fill in more details. I listened to both Bernie and Martin's announcement speeches, looked at their websites. They both have LESS information on issues that I care about than Hillary - and she hasn't had her announcement rally yet. Martin didn't mention TPP much (if at all) today.
Just because YOU want something NOW is not a reason to think it won't happen. It will. If Hillary came out tomorrow and said, "I hate the TPP and I'll veto it!", would you become a Hillary supported? Are you asking for something that probably won't really matter to you, but it's likely just a way to bash a candidate? If you are prepared to change to Hillary, then as soon as she announces her position on TPP, I'll remind you.
Edited and added links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership_n_7173108.html
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/hillary-clinton-breaks-silence-on-tpp-429927491836
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-trade-deal-conditions-trans-pacific-partnership-117189.html
cui bono
(19,926 posts)if they do that, but she can say if she thinks it's a good or bad thing. Plenty of people are doing that.
I ask so that I can speak to the issue. I just defended Hillary in another OP, so no, I'm not just trying to bash her. I can't see me ever being swayed to vote for her, but I need to know where she stands on things so that I know for certain that I'm making the right choice and so I can speak about all the candidates' positions.
After O'Malley entered the race I went into the O'Malley group to learn more about him as well. He said some great stuff about the banksters.
We are supposed to make informed decisions, after all, and if we are going to speak to others about our own candidate we need to know where the others stand on the issues as well.
And I'm not talking about only what the candidates have said in their campaign kick offs, I'm talking about what they've ever said, preferably recently, about these issues. Limiting it to the campaign kick offs or even websites is not a fair way to look at this.
So far it seems that she has not spoken out about Glass-Steagall and has not called for or supported the prosecution of any banksters. That's important to me since they collapsed our economy and we bailed them out since they were thought to be 'too big to fail' and have now been allowed to get even bigger. That is not okay.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)You can see some of what she says so far.
Check out Hillary mojo..
What would you like the candidates to say? Put them in jail? If that were easily possible, it would have been done, but even if it happened (like Enron folks who went to jail, or Bernie Maddow who went to jail), all that would result at Goldman Sachs is NOTHING.
If you break up banks willy-nilly, then you may have another economic crisis, now blamed on the Democrats, and lose the WH.
Right now, my union negotiated, employment fund for the state of FL is doing well. You can regulate or break up banks, but don't cost me and the teachers and firemen their retirement! A lot of my money was in AIG, which got bailed out. Much better than the Enron folks, or Detroit workers who lost their pensions.
Hillary has talked to Warren about changing regulations - but reenacting Glass-Stegall with a GOP Congress will be impossible. It's true that Obama's AG didn't prosecute very many individuals. Hopefully the next President will do better on that one, but even if they win a conviction of a handful of bankers - it will likely be a back page story.
Right now, there is more US money in the Caribbean banks than in NYC. Think about it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I've seen that stated many times already as an excuse, I guess, but we can get back congress. Obama had it and he didn't even try to reinstate it. I need to know that the person I'm voting for wants to. Can't know that until they tell me.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)This is what a President faces every time they invite "leaders" and "economists" into the WH:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/
Powerful economists, obviously people who try to buy influence, and think tanks. They argue over and over that regulations had nothing to do with the bank crisis - you can read it for yourself.
The same thing with TPP - and Obama has obviously listened to some of their arguments.
Even though I'm not convinced that many Wall Street banks are anything but crooks, it's hard to toss some of those people out the window after lunch.
Just some late night reading to see what kind of debate the Hillary's and Warrens are up against.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... would ABSOLUTELY do something, it would serve notice that these acts will not be permitted in the future. As it is nothing has changed in the world of the banksters and the next crisis will make 2008 look like a picnic.
And all of the corrupt politicians and their defenders and apologists (like you) will sing the "who knew?" song again. It's getting stale.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Martin O'Malley has never sat in Congress so he didn't vote on it, either. Nevertheless, he apparently takes the novel view that, as a candidate for President, he should let the voters know where he stands on major public issues, even if it means that some voters (or -- gasp -- donors!) might be upset by his answer.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)after all, we need to reign in the military industrial complex! Who cares if the Naval Academy is in Maryland. Has good old Martin been a progressive leader? Likewise, Bernie should come out against ice cream for children. They are all pretty fat now. Tell that to Ben & Jerry.
Meanwhile, attacking an unknown is silly. From the past, expecting a Senator from any state to openly go after their own state interests is also silly. Especially before the economic meltdown had not occurred yet.
Hillary will surely address bank regulations at some point (and her first announcement rally isn't until June 16). If Warren supports Hillary, would that matter? Being anti-banks right now is easy to put in a speech - low hanging fruit. Even if Hillary parroted the usual memes, the anti-Hillary folks would just say, "we don't believe what she's saying".
Meanwhile: http://time.com/3902555/martin-omalley-campaign-baltimore/
We need to know more than "where someone stands". We need to know if they make careful, intelligent decisions. We need to know if they can get along with Congress, other countries, Wall Street, unions, women, minorities, immigrants, etc. Martin didn't do so well with Baltimore police as it turned out.
Hillary has already targeted a path to citizenship, Supreme Court justices, and women's rights. Which of those did Martin (or Bernie) discuss at length lately? If you want to criticize Hillary for an unknown policy, why not do the same for all candidates? Why not pick some issue that Martin (or Bernie) failed to mention and post a thread making some kind of deal out of it? Anything will do.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I personally believe we should rein in the military-industrial complex but that we should not abolish the service academies. I also believe that obesity is a problem in the United States but we should not ban ice cream for children. If those positions are too nuanced for you to understand then you can go right ahead and think I'm inconsistent.
You write that "expecting a Senator from any state to openly go after their own state interests is also silly." This thread is about Glass-Steagall and we've already established that Clinton wasn't a Senator and didn't vote on repealing it. At any rate, she's not now running to represent New York. She's running to be President, presumably of all the people. She's certainly not campaigning on an express platform of doing what's best for Wall Street, or even what's best for New York. So, assuming she wants what's good for the whole country, does she think reinstatement of Glass-Steagall would be good?
You write, "If Warren supports Hillary, would that matter?" For me, personally, I have a great deal of admiration for Senator Warren, and her endorsement would mean something to me -- but not a whole lot if she's endorsing in a race (like the Presidential nomination contest) where I already know a fair amount about the candidates. It would matter more if she asked me to donate to some faraway House candidate I'd never heard of.
"Even if Hillary parroted the usual memes...." Well, that's pretty much what she's done. She's for fairness, for more jobs (specifically more good jobs), etc., and she's against Wall Street excesses. Such parroting is risk-free. BUT after the platitudes have been voiced, where does she stand on reinstating Glass-Steagall? A candidate can't give a specific answer without ticking off someone. O'Malley and Sanders have nevertheless given specific answers (both favor it), so it's reasonable for a DUer to ask if Clinton has.
You conclude by bringing up a bunch of other issues. Boy, you really scored with that one. Somebody started a thread on DU that deals with an important public issue and didn't include every other issue that anyone might be concerned about! Damn, cui bono was lucky not to have had the post hidden for such an outrage.
If you're genuinely curious about candidate stands on any of these points (as opposed to just raising issues as a polemical device), I suggest you start your own thread. The dedicated groups for Sanders and O'Malley have plenty of knowledgeable regulars, some of whom would be willing to do the research that you can't be bothered to undertake. I did happen to remember, and could quickly confirm, that O'Malley as Governor "named the first black female judge to Maryland's highest court and elevated a current member to be its first female chief judge...." (Link here) So there you have at least some information on both judgeships and women's rights.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)the demand for Hillary to say something about Glass-Steagall that you want to hear is a straw man!!
I you aren't going to support Hillary no matter what she says, then why participate in "an important thread" that demands an answer that won't matter to you. The answers are easily available (as you point out).
Why is it not ok for military academies to be just as important to me - so i can automatically reject Martin O'Malley? It's just as silly to reject Hillary because you want someone to proclaim some meme about "putting the bankers in jail" or whatever.
I'm going to vote for the Democratic candidate.
cali
(114,904 posts)is to dodge, weave and construct an army of strawmen in a clumsy defense of Clinton, no matter what the issue. It's obvious and pitiable. It renders having an actual discussion with you, pointless.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I've already explained to you why I asked. If you choose to ignore it, I can't do anything about that.
After O'Malley entered the race I went into the O'Malley group to learn more about him as well. He said some great stuff about the banksters.
We are supposed to make informed decisions, after all, and if we are going to speak to others about our own candidate we need to know where the others stand on the issues as well.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6755823
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)At this point, you're right that I probably won't vote for Clinton in the primary. My primary is late in the calendar, though. It's remotely conceivable that, by that time, the only viable candidates will be Clinton and Webb. If I had to cast that vote right now I'd be undecided.
Even aside from my own vote, there are plenty of people participating in issue discussions on DU who are already pretty set in their individual decisions. Diehard Clinton supporters have been criticizing Sanders, and will probably increase their level of criticizing O'Malley, even though they won't support those candidates no matter what they say. I see nothing wrong with such discussion.
You ask, "Why is it not ok for military academies to be just as important to me - so i can automatically reject Martin O'Malley?"
I never said it wasn't OK. I gave my personal opinion that the military academies should stay. I'll hazard a wild guess that Martin O'Malley agrees. If you favor closing the military academies, and to you it's an important issue that will influence your vote, you're certainly within your rights. We just disagree.
The role of the military in society is, like Glass-Steagall, a legitimate public issue. Some think the current status of the military is fine. There probably are supporters of radical demilitarization who would want to close the academies. There are many of us at an in-between position, believing that the military-industrial complex is too powerful and that military spending should be reduced, but that some level of spending is acceptable and that the service academies should stay.
If you want to criticize O'Malley for not wanting to close the academies, you should start a separate thread. It's not appropriate for a thread about Clinton and Glass-Steagall. (DU often sees a certain amount of topic drift, but let's not get ridiculous about it.)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and knowing Sanders' stance. I would have posted in the Hillary group but they got mad at me for pointing out the hypocrisy of them complaining about Sanders supporters being mean while plotting against them in their protected group and planning to tattle on them by actually emailing Sanders. No, I'm not making it up.
So, I posted in GD because I figured if it had happened someone would come along and post the info.
You are welcome to start any OP you like asking about Sanders' or O'Malley's stance. Why do you think that I shouldn't be posting an OP asking for information? Ironically since you have a problem with this OP... all your defending of Hillary managed to give me some information, albeit not answers to my questions, that makes Hillary look a lot worse than to me than before (her deal with the Obama admin to not criticize each other stands out as a real affront to the people of the US she wants to represent).
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Hillary has adopted Elizabeths talking points of late, but if it weren't for Elizabeth this would likely NOT be a topic we're discussing. It was the reason for the whole Run Warren Run campaign.
So, nice try - but FAIL.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)so since she herself had no vote on the repeal of Glass Steagal, done during her HUSBAND'S administration, she does not need to have an opinion on this? You serious? So can she have an opinion on the US Civil War, or the Great Depression? Perhaps even WW II? She was not even alive for those.
Most of the field on the Republican side was too young to vote on it as well. So is O'Malley. Though Bernie Sanders was a congressman at the time and voted NO.
This is one slimy little argument. So we should consider HRC to be a de-novo candidate who has no opinions going to before she served for herself in Congress? Never mind that she was also part of the lobbying team from the WH during her husband's administration.
Look, my candidate will win (big money, good odds), but this is just some really dishonest partisan tripe that deserves a really loud laughing tract.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)would like the idea of reviving G-S one little bit. And that answers the question.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Same time, Sanders and O'malley are talking issues.
elleng
(130,732 posts)THIS fashions my decision on whom to support for president. She has not, and a 'listening' tour is not necessary to make the right decisions. These are critical matters, to our economic and financial well-being for foreseeable generations.
Throw the bums out of our financial institutions NOW.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with "too big to fail", and it isn't about banks "gambling your money" (the whole point of a bank is to take your money and gamble it for you*). It's about whether a retail bank like Bank of America can operate a proprietary trading desk and gamble its own money in securities.
None of the banks that failed (or were declared too big to fail) in 2008 had been covered by Glass-Steagall. It was a decent law, that I'd like to see re-instated, but it really didn't have anything to do with 2008.
* that's not quite right either; deposits are actually liabilities to a bank. The point is that Glass-Steagall was not about what happens to your deposit money after you deposit it but about a bank's own capital.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)help avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis. She says G-S couldn't have protected us all by itself but it takes out most of the risk & brings down the size of the largest banking institutions...
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/09/18/century-glass-steagall-act-will-disable-too-big-fail-bank-risk/cdR0wqqnDIGBBoYAaFFfbO/story.html
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm sorry, have you been taking whippets?
There is a difference between commercial banking and investment banking - at least there was until G-S was repealed. In fact that was the entire point of G-S, to prevent commercial banks from using the money of hteir customers to play the investment market.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I caveated in my footnote that that sentence you quoted wasn't really true but was a decent metaphor.
Money you deposit in a commercial bank essentially disappears, and becomes a liability on the bank's part. Money banks loan out isn't subtracted from some existing account somewhere, but is simply created out of nothing subject to limits based on the commercial bank's reserve account. (My point was that banks don't loan out depositors' money.)
What Glass-Steagall did was limit a commercial bank's ability to use its capital (of which part is its reserves) to purchase stocks and other securities.
That's a probably-good law, though if it had been in place in 2008 things might have been much worse at that particular moment because the retail banks could not have stablized the investment banks (I acknowledge that the fix at the time may have made things worse in the long term -- the whole point is this isn't a simple question).
There is a difference between commercial banking and investment banking - at least there was until G-S was repealed
But none of the failing banks were the newly-liberated commercial banks, except for Citi at the very tail end of things (BofA and Wachovia sank from investments that were legal with or without Glass-Steagall).
Caretha
(2,737 posts)of the Mattress Bank. During the "Great Depression", before and after, people did not trust the banks with their money because of the risky investments by the banks and gigantic losses that ordinary people were suffering because of the malfeasance of the bankers and wall street stock margin boondoggle. Hence, the Glass-Steagall Act and the FDIC "sticker" system was instituted to give people faith again in banks, and to prevent the banks from the lawlessness, greed and corruption of before.
Well, they say history does repeat itself. Why we had to call the last one a "Great Recession" versus "The Great Depression II", was/is for confusion sake and of course to keep the wool over the sheeples eyes.
Words are very powerful, must be careful with the way we label things.
LOL! Deposits are a liability to a bank! Oh wow...the shit I read on DU! Ever seen a bank stay in business without deposits? Ever seen a bank hand out a loan without having deposits to back it?
I swear some of the stuff I read here is so sad, I just assume it was written at a time of duress.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It didn't cause it, it just made it gigantic.
Glass-Steagall actually has a lot to do with too big to fail. The separation of commercial and investment banking reduces interconnectedness. The twin problems that caused 2008 and made it global were the massive leveraged used and the interconnectedness of the financial world. Had there been a fire break between the investment and commercial arms of what we consider primarily commercial banks (BofA, Wells, etc.), it would have been far harder to justify handing them a blank check to cover their own privately incurred losses.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)billions can be transfered anywhere in the world in milliseconds.
I doubt it.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A CNN story, "5 questions for Hillary Clinton on Wall St", included bringing back Glass-Steagall as one of the five. The best four paragraphs from the story:
There is a movement in Washington to bring back Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law that separated commercial banking (read: boring) from investment banking activities (read: risky).
It's a tricky issue for Clinton to navigate because her husband Bill Clinton signed a law rolling back major provisions of Glass-Steagall in the 1990s, a period of sweeping financial deregulation.
. . . .
On the trail this week, Clinton spoke out against "risky behavior" on Wall Street.
On the general subject of Wall Street reform, the article quoted unnamed campaign officials to the effect that, down the road, Clinton will be addressing specific policy questions.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And just as evidently, how dare you ask a candidate's positions you insignificant mortal?!?!