Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton’s Pay-for-Play Reality
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-pay-play-realityAnd then Lloyd revealed that Hillary Clinton isnt the only one feeling the Bern. The remarkably unreflective Blankfein said the anti-Wall Street sentiment fueling Sen. Bernie Sanderss insurgent campaign represented a dangerous moment for Wall Street and, by extension, for America. In that revealing moment of truth, Blankfeins blurb not only encapsulated Wall Streets growing discomfort with the surging candidacy of, as Blankfein put it, another kid from Brooklyn, but it also exposed Wall Streets lingering detachment from the costly outcomes of its free-wheeling actions.
And it didnt do Hillary any favors which is something new for Goldman Sachs. Lloyd unintentionally poured gasoline into an already white-hot news cycle thats raced out of Hillarys control. And it further reinforced Bernies case that Hillary, the former Senator from Wall Street, is just too closely linked to the rigged economy to actually reform it.
But perhaps the most interesting part of Lloyds warning centered on his concerns about the post-election political landscape and his sense that the real danger is not people with pitchforks taking to the street. Rather, Lloyd is worried that Washingtons political machine could stall if all that public anger hampers politicians by turning a demonstrated willingness to compromise into a political liability. And when Wall Streeters talk about compromise, they are referring to their seemingly innate ability to manufacture bipartisan consent in spite of the often-bemoaned acrimony that locks up Republicans and Democrats.
For example, the two big post-Crash bailouts were built on exactly this type of compromise. And yes, there were two bailouts. There was the highly-visible, widely-reported $700+ billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). But there was also a host of other, often-secret bailouts and programs that may cost somewhere around $4 trillion to $7.7 trillion or, according to one accounting, as high as $16.8 trillion. Most Americans are unfamiliar with those side-deals built on Washingtons reliable willingness to compromise with Wall Street.
Another good example is the often-criticized and wholly-overrated Dodd-Frank law that was ostensibly designed to rein-in the excesses of Wall Street. Instead, it seems to have acted like an accelerator. Less than two years after Dodd-Frank was signed into law on July 21, 2010, Bloomberg Business reported that just five banks JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America , Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs saw their assets spike to $8.5 trillion. That equaled a staggering 56 percent of the U.S. economy.
Like a magic trick, they saw their assets rise 13 percent during a post-Crash crisis that, according to the Treasury Department, simultaneously eliminated $19.2 trillion in household wealth.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 703 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (7)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton’s Pay-for-Play Reality (Original Post)
eridani
Feb 2016
OP
Sanders takes money from wall street too through some indirect means does that mean
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#1
Who cares? I like a lot other voters are not impressed with endorsements ... on the other hand
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#3
Yeah, they "banksters" didn't cause the crash it was the investment brokers and Sanders allowed them
uponit7771
Feb 2016
#6
maybe because the fact that some of Sanders donars maybe made a bit however small
azurnoir
Feb 2016
#5
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)1. Sanders takes money from wall street too through some indirect means does that mean
... he has a pay for play reality too?
eridani
(51,907 posts)2. So how come Blankfien hasn't endorsed him? n/t
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)3. Who cares? I like a lot other voters are not impressed with endorsements ... on the other hand
... I will look longer at a candidate who has this many people endorsing the other person though.
What is it 9 to 1 now...
Hell, did Sanders piss everyone off?
eridani
(51,907 posts)4. Rah rah WAR! RAh rah banksters!
The people who brought us skyrocketing inequality and endless war are for Clinton.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)6. Yeah, they "banksters" didn't cause the crash it was the investment brokers and Sanders allowed them
... to run amoke with his CFMA vote which literally deregulated CDOs
I'm not impressed with Sanders wall street record
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)5. maybe because the fact that some of Sanders donars maybe made a bit however small
from their WallStreet® investments or employer stock benefits doesn't mean that much to Blankenfein