homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Why Wall Street Gives Millions to Hillary (As a Former Goldman Sachs Banker, I Say Bernie Has It Right) Raghuram Rajan, now the head of India's central bank, once wrote an academic paper blaming the financial crisis on poor people. Just yesterday, Bill Clinton placed blame for the crisis on our government. Anyone who has seen the Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job knows full well that the crisis was caused by our banks. Banks lent trillions of dollars to home buyers on too loose of terms knowing that they could turn the resulting junk mortgages into AAA securities through the alchemy of CDOs and securitization and thus generate hundreds of billions of profit and leave the resulting mortgage mess to their investing clients. But the financial crisis is behind us, right? Why would Wall Street shower Hillary Clinton with millions of dollars in speaking fees and tens of millions in campaign contributions? I think it is an insurance policy. Wall Street wants a friend in the White House to protect the status quo, and if they can't get a Republican elected, Hillary is the next best thing. I think they need a friend in government because the industry could not survive an investigation into how they actually make their profits.... Read more at: http://www.huffingto..._b_9049992.html Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NC1406 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2424912 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. You prefer opinion pieces presented as "the truth"? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2424990 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. You prefer opinion pieces presented as "the truth"? Opinions have greater weight when presented with factual support. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425008 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. You prefer opinion pieces presented as "the truth"? Opinions have greater weight when presented with factual support. You didn't read the piece did you? Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425017 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. You prefer opinion pieces presented as "the truth"? Opinions have greater weight when presented with factual support. You didn't read the piece did you? Nope. I read the comments here. I was just speaking in general terms. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425019 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 The author of this article says "I think" far too many times for me to take him serious. "I say "I think" because I can't prove it. Why? Because these folks have contributed millions to your congressmen to make sure that hedge funds remain unregulated and do not have to file detailed financial reports with the SEC." Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425022 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 things come to mind here... 1. Wall Street and the banking industry, despite what the 99% crowd thinks, didn't break any laws and deviously tank our economy just to make a fast buck. They played with in the rules CONGRESS set up, and , by in very large part, the rules DEMOCRATS made. What token opposition the GOP made was too little and not sustained enough to wash their hands of blame either. But the point is, they ALL screwed this up, because that's what big govts DO. 2. Hillary pretends to be anti- this and that, but the truth is, she more than anyone is up to her neck in dirty deals,corruption, and quid pro quo deals, like accepting $ from Trump and showing up at his wedding ( very tiny example ) Those w/ the most to protect, will give $ to those who have the biggest influence over them. In simple terms, it's protection $, and the govt is the big gangster on the block. EVERYONE's block. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425028 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 2 things come to mind here... 1. Wall Street and the banking industry, despite what the 99% crowd thinks, didn't break any laws and deviously tank our economy just to make a fast buck. They played with in the rules CONGRESS set up, and , by in very large part, the rules DEMOCRATS made. What token opposition the GOP made was too little and not sustained enough to wash their hands of blame either. But the point is, they ALL screwed this up, because that's what big govts DO. 2. Hillary pretends to be anti- this and that, but the truth is, she more than anyone is up to her neck in dirty deals,corruption, and quid pro quo deals, like accepting $ from Trump and showing up at his wedding ( very tiny example ) Those w/ the most to protect, will give $ to those who have the biggest influence over them. In simple terms, it's protection $, and the govt is the big gangster on the block. EVERYONE's block. I think you are missing the point. And this was most certainly about making a "fast buck". Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425043 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think you are missing the point. And this was most certainly about making a "fast buck". what point am I missing then ? Don't be afraid to share. If my financial institution can make $ , I want it to do that. That's what they do. And the more govt meddles w/ the free market the more the free market will do to adjust to the landscape. Capitalism will evolve and adapt to what ever constraints govt makes, faster than govt can react. That's what the dinks in D.C. can't grasp. They think ( and Hillary in particular ) that if a law is made, then everyone will just lay down, accept the new reality, and go on, under the new rules. That's not what happens in the REAL world. Folks look for short cuts, ways around the laws, and or change their habits. What results is people change the way they were doing things, and the predictions made by the bean counters in D.C. don't take into account of new patterns, and their models of how things SHOULD work out fall apart. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425049 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think you are missing the point. And this was most certainly about making a "fast buck". what point am I missing then ? Don't be afraid to share. If my financial institution can make $ , I want it to do that. That's what they do. And the more govt meddles w/ the free market the more the free market will do to adjust to the landscape. Capitalism will evolve and adapt to what ever constraints govt makes, faster than govt can react. That's what the dinks in D.C. can't grasp. They think ( and Hillary in particular ) that if a law is made, then everyone will just lay down, accept the new reality, and go on, under the new rules. That's not what happens in the REAL world. Folks look for short cuts, ways around the laws, and or change their habits. What results is people change the way they were doing things, and the predictions made by the bean counters in D.C. don't take into account of new patterns, and their models of how things SHOULD work out fall apart. Well if you seriously believe banks too big to fail should be able to profit from bubbles they created then receive government bail outs when they finally pop is a good - or natural - thing, you should vote for Hillary! Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2425125 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 They didn't create them. The govt did. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426369 Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,998 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 They didn't create them. The govt did. you are beyond help. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426438 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,137 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 They didn't create them. The govt did. you are beyond help. Does it help that the could have chosen NOT to act as they did, even though it was the govt which caused the scenario in the first place ? If you put out a table full of sandwiches, and simply EXPECT most folks to take 1 or 2, and some joker comes around and takes 30, most would call that wrong. It's taking advantage of the situation. But if you've not set up a system which only allows for folks to take 1 or 2, whose fault is it , really ? ( No, not an exact comparison to the housing bubble, but it makes the point. If you don't make it illegal... ) Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426443 Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,998 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426466 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 8,222 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 One of the only things that I cannot fault the Bush Administration about is the 2005 attempt to stop the financial crisis. In trying to avert the disaster, it was the Democrats on the House oversight committee that stood flatly in the way of doing the right thing. Waters, Frank, etc were adamant that there was no looming financial crisis. Bush was right. Congress got paid off. The American taxpayer got hosed. Wall Street got in the Obama Administration's back pocket early and came out of the financial crisis smelling like a rose. NO INDICTMENTS, NO JAIL TIME, NO REAL COURT BATTLES. I cant name but a very very few Libs that are even upset about it either. So dont try and sell me a version that it is just a Dem looking and acting like a Republican. On this issue, the Republican Administration was leading the charge. It was stymied by the Dems in the HOR. The Dems got the payoffs. The Dems did not prosecute, did not investigate, did not indict. Sorry, but the truth and the facts speak to a whole other reality. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426500 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426505 Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,998 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. both sides of the aisle are at fault. I agree. But I don't know of ant qualifications for home buyers with only unemployment income. My wife was a mortgage broker for 19 years. Never seen or heard that either. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426511 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 They didn't create them. The govt did. you are beyond help. Some people are so obsessed with their paradigms they simply cannot recognize the truth. I suppose the logic here is that because the government relaxed the regulations and turned a blind eye to the scam these companies perpetuated it's the government's fault. Well that is certainly part of the truth, but it doesn't mean it was the government that was creating securities based on algorithms no one understood. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426614 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 One of the only things that I cannot fault the Bush Administration about is the 2005 attempt to stop the financial crisis. In trying to avert the disaster, it was the Democrats on the House oversight committee that stood flatly in the way of doing the right thing. Waters, Frank, etc were adamant that there was no looming financial crisis. Bush was right. Congress got paid off. The American taxpayer got hosed. Wall Street got in the Obama Administration's back pocket early and came out of the financial crisis smelling like a rose. NO INDICTMENTS, NO JAIL TIME, NO REAL COURT BATTLES. I cant name but a very very few Libs that are even upset about it either. So dont try and sell me a version that it is just a Dem looking and acting like a Republican. On this issue, the Republican Administration was leading the charge. It was stymied by the Dems in the HOR. The Dems got the payoffs. The Dems did not prosecute, did not investigate, did not indict. Sorry, but the truth and the facts speak to a whole other reality. Portraying this as a partisan issue is one of the major ways the moneyed interests - and politicians - use to hoodwink you. they operate more or less the same regardless of the party in office. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426616 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. The economy and financial system could have absorbed every single foreclosure. It was these highly leveraged derivatives being created and fed into the bubble that caused the financial crisis, not the foreclosures per se'. The unregulated housing market was a factor, but the real damage was the leveraging of that housing bubble into a monster derivative bubble. Regardless it was all caused by bad policy and a pure laissez faire market climate. Markets need regulation to thrive and remain stable. Greed quickly turns to malfeasance without rules. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426622 Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,887 Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. both sides of the aisle are at fault. I agree. But I don't know of ant qualifications for home buyers with only unemployment income. My wife was a mortgage broker for 19 years. Never seen or heard that either. (It's called myth-building.) :-\ Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426623 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. both sides of the aisle are at fault. I agree. But I don't know of ant qualifications for home buyers with only unemployment income. My wife was a mortgage broker for 19 years. Never seen or heard that either. Oh it happened. How many subprime mortgages to minorities did she write? Probably none which could be the reason she knows nothing about them. Unemployment benefits, social security benefits qualified poor minorities to purchase homes and Andrew Cuomo was the biggest cheerleader in terms of relaxing credit and income requirements in qualifying these types of applications "During Cuomo's tenure as HUD Secretary, he called for an increase in home ownership.[12] He also pushed government-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more home loans issued to poor homeowners, in an attempt to end discrimination against minorities.[13] Some believe that this helped lead to the current subprime mortgage crisis.[8][12][14] Edward J. Pinto, former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, said "they should have known the risks were large. Cuomo was pushing mortgage bankers to make loans and basically saying you have to offer a loan to everybody."[12] But others disagree with that assessment that Cuomo caused the crisis. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Cuomo "was a contributor in terms of him being a cheerleader, but I don't think we can pin too much blame on him."[12] https://en.wikipedia...ki/Andrew_Cuomo Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426630 Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Back on topic about Hillary and wall Street. They know she has to talk tough on Wall Street to get elected.They also know she doesn't mean it because they have paid her enormous sums of money and have her securely in their back pocket The list of Wall Street firms that barred reporters from covering her speeches reads like Who’s Who of the country’s largest and most prestigious wealth management companies. Those confirmed by TheDCNF to have excluded reporters include: the Goldman Sachs Group, UBS Wealth Management, Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts and Company, the Carlyle Group, Apollo Management Holdings, Fidelity Investments, Morgan Stanley and Golden Tree Asset Management. Combined, the companies represent $10.5 trillion of assets under management. These off-the-record speeches were delivered after Clinton left the Department of State as the nation’s chief diplomat in early 2013, but before she announced her second bid for the White House in April 2015, according to TheDCNF investigation.... Clinton laughed off a request Friday at a campaign stop in Manchester, N.H. to release transcripts of speeches she delivered before the Goldman Sachs Group, one of Wall Street’s best known investments firms. Goldman Sachs paid $675,000 for three Clinton speeches in 2013, yet journalists were barred from these speeches..... “You got to be really, really, really good to get $250,000 for a speech.” http://dailycaller.c...treet-speeches/ Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s chief opponent for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has publicly mocked Hillary’s six-figure fees on the campaign trail. She received on average $225,000 for each speech before financial institutions, according to federal tax returns examined by TheDCNF. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426669 Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,998 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The "they" you are referring to bought the damn government. Oh Im sure if one backed away in order to get a wide view, it would be difficult to identify any innocents involved in that meltdown. However, i would take exception to the idea that the govt was bought in order for firms like Lehman Bros. to speculate on bundles of mortgage backed securities. It was a common practice that had been going on for decades and was called derivative trading. Relaxed govt regulations by Fannie and Freddie to qualify prospective buyers for home ownership who only had unemployment benefits as income exacerbated the speculative nature of that practice. It all came to a crashing stop as foreclosures accelerated and property values plummeted. both sides of the aisle are at fault. I agree. But I don't know of ant qualifications for home buyers with only unemployment income. My wife was a mortgage broker for 19 years. Never seen or heard that either. Oh it happened. How many subprime mortgages to minorities did she write? Probably none which could be the reason she knows nothing about them. Unemployment benefits, social security benefits qualified poor minorities to purchase homes and Andrew Cuomo was the biggest cheerleader in terms of relaxing credit and income requirements in qualifying these types of applications "During Cuomo's tenure as HUD Secretary, he called for an increase in home ownership.[12] He also pushed government-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more home loans issued to poor homeowners, in an attempt to end discrimination against minorities.[13] Some believe that this helped lead to the current subprime mortgage crisis.[8][12][14] Edward J. Pinto, former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, said "they should have known the risks were large. Cuomo was pushing mortgage bankers to make loans and basically saying you have to offer a loan to everybody."[12] But others disagree with that assessment that Cuomo caused the crisis. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Cuomo "was a contributor in terms of him being a cheerleader, but I don't think we can pin too much blame on him."[12] https://en.wikipedia...ki/Andrew_Cuomo she processed and originated thousands of conforming and sub prime mortgages. Social security income was and still is counted because it is permanent income. Unemployment is temporary. Never counted under any guidelines she was aware of. That is not to say it was not way too relaxed. She made loans she knew damn well the borrower could not pay. She could not legally deny them. Link to comment https://www.aufamily.com/topic/149781-why-wall-street-gives-millions-to-hillary/#findComment-2426778 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.