King James Bible says: “No man can serve two masters: for either he
will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the
one, and despise the other."
Folks, it's a miracle! Washington D.C. politicians have figured out
how to serve multiple Masters.
Carl Jarvis
Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Weissman writes: "Choosing Hillary comes down to giving the whole loaf to
Wall Street while barely leaving crumbs for the rest of us. Except for the
self-serving, where's the pragmatism in that?"
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
How Hillary Tells Us She Won't Fight Wall Street
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
25 January 16
Hillary Clinton has a stronger, more detailed plan to regulate Wall Street
than does Bernie Sanders, says the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul
Krugman. But, adds journalist Ezra Klein, many are skeptical that she will
do what she says.
"She has spoken out of both sides of her mouth on a number of issues,"
agrees public banking campaigner Ellen Brown. "So it doesn't seem like we
can trust her."
Between savants and skeptics, policy wonks and the politically wary, how
can
ordinary voters decide for themselves? It isn't easy.
"Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that
separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And
repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake," Krugman wrote. "But it's
not
what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from 'shadow banks'
like Lehman Brothers, which don't take deposits but can nonetheless wreak
havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow
banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn't."
Krugman also finds that Wall Street prefers any Republican over either of
the Democrats. Yet Wall Streeters are giving Hillary significant
contributions, and their financial media does not view her as a major
threat
to their interests.
"As long as Hillary Clinton is in charge, they know that the Clintons
historically have been enormously helpful to the banking industry,"
explains
former federal regulator William K. Black. "And in return the banking
industry - not simply the banking industry, others as well - have made the
Clintons very wealthy."
No surprise, Hillary has little to say about her husband's dealings with
Wall Street, which will arguably define his place in history. I in no way
hold Hillary accountable for the Big Dog's transgressions, and certainly
not
for his carnal sins, which right-wingers delight in accusing her of
enabling. But what does she think of his enabling Wall Street to bring the
global economy to a thudding crash? How does she respond to Bill's role in
helping Wall Street gain such power and promote such glaring inequality?
Ask her. We need to know, and so far, her silence speaks volumes.
Remember that Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 as an economic
populist
on a platform created largely by Robert Reich, who became his Secretary of
Labor. But Bill brought in Robert Rubin, co-chair of Goldman Sachs, to
serve
first as his chief economic advisor and then as Secretary of the Treasury.
The soft-spoken Rubin persuaded Clinton to pay off the budget deficit left
to him by George H.W. Bush, a move that won Wall Street's blessing and
helped fuel the boom-and-bust prosperity of the 1990s. The alternative, as
many people now understand, would have been to rebuild our already failing
bridges, transportation systems, waterworks, and electrical grids.
Rubin also convinced Clinton to push Wall Street's neo-liberal economics
and
its Washington Consensus worldwide, while making the North American Free
Trade Agreement a top priority, without providing any safety net for
American workers whose jobs went abroad.
But, most telling, Rubin and his understudy Larry Summers prevailed on
Clinton to restrain financial regulators within the administration from
doing their job, regulators like Bill Black and Brooksley Born, chair of
the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission. (See her story at PBS Frontline.)
Clinton then went along with Texas senator Phil Gramm and the
Republican-led
Congress to massively deregulate financial markets, just as Rubin and his
Wall Street friends wanted. Clinton fought for and signed the repeal of
most
of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal's already porous wall between commercial
and
investment banking. Even worse, he fought for and signed the Commodities
Future Modernization Act, which removed most federal regulation of credit
default swaps and other over-the-counter-derivatives, the "financial
weapons
of mass destruction" that shadow banks like Lehman Brothers misused to
bring
down the global economy in 2008.
Enabling Wall Street in this way was Bill Clinton's mortal sin, making him
an accomplice to the economic crime of the century. He was a well-paid
accomplice at that, "earning" some $250 million from going to work for the
Wall Street mob after he left the Oval Office. Having shared royally in the
pay-off, Hillary has never confronted either the economic crime or Bill's
complicity in it. Since she's too smart - and too experienced - not to have
seen them both, she's telling us that she would be likely to do much the
same.
Krugman misses this. The choice in the Democratic primaries, as he sees it,
is between Bernie Sanders' whole-loaf idealism, which Krugman calls
self-indulgent, and Hillary's half-a-loaf pragmatism, which he prefers. In
reality, choosing Hillary comes down to giving the whole loaf to Wall
Street
while barely leaving crumbs for the rest of us. Except for the
self-serving,
where's the pragmatism in that?
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
How Hillary Tells Us She Won't Fight Wall Street
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
25 January 16
illary Clinton has a stronger, more detailed plan to regulate Wall Street
than does Bernie Sanders, says the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul
Krugman. But, adds journalist Ezra Klein, many are skeptical that she will
do what she says.
"She has spoken out of both sides of her mouth on a number of issues,"
agrees public banking campaigner Ellen Brown. "So it doesn't seem like we
can trust her."
Between savants and skeptics, policy wonks and the politically wary, how
can
ordinary voters decide for themselves? It isn't easy.
"Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that
separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And
repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake," Krugman wrote. "But it's
not
what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from 'shadow banks'
like Lehman Brothers, which don't take deposits but can nonetheless wreak
havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow
banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn't."
Krugman also finds that Wall Street prefers any Republican over either of
the Democrats. Yet Wall Streeters are giving Hillary significant
contributions, and their financial media does not view her as a major
threat
to their interests.
"As long as Hillary Clinton is in charge, they know that the Clintons
historically have been enormously helpful to the banking industry,"
explains
former federal regulator William K. Black. "And in return the banking
industry - not simply the banking industry, others as well - have made the
Clintons very wealthy."
No surprise, Hillary has little to say about her husband's dealings with
Wall Street, which will arguably define his place in history. I in no way
hold Hillary accountable for the Big Dog's transgressions, and certainly
not
for his carnal sins, which right-wingers delight in accusing her of
enabling. But what does she think of his enabling Wall Street to bring the
global economy to a thudding crash? How does she respond to Bill's role in
helping Wall Street gain such power and promote such glaring inequality?
Ask her. We need to know, and so far, her silence speaks volumes.
Remember that Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 as an economic
populist
on a platform created largely by Robert Reich, who became his Secretary of
Labor. But Bill brought in Robert Rubin, co-chair of Goldman Sachs, to
serve
first as his chief economic advisor and then as Secretary of the Treasury.
The soft-spoken Rubin persuaded Clinton to pay off the budget deficit left
to him by George H.W. Bush, a move that won Wall Street's blessing and
helped fuel the boom-and-bust prosperity of the 1990s. The alternative, as
many people now understand, would have been to rebuild our already failing
bridges, transportation systems, waterworks, and electrical grids.
Rubin also convinced Clinton to push Wall Street's neo-liberal economics
and
its Washington Consensus worldwide, while making the North American Free
Trade Agreement a top priority, without providing any safety net for
American workers whose jobs went abroad.
But, most telling, Rubin and his understudy Larry Summers prevailed on
Clinton to restrain financial regulators within the administration from
doing their job, regulators like Bill Black and Brooksley Born, chair of
the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission. (See her story at PBS Frontline.)
Clinton then went along with Texas senator Phil Gramm and the
Republican-led
Congress to massively deregulate financial markets, just as Rubin and his
Wall Street friends wanted. Clinton fought for and signed the repeal of
most
of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal's already porous wall between commercial
and
investment banking. Even worse, he fought for and signed the Commodities
Future Modernization Act, which removed most federal regulation of credit
default swaps and other over-the-counter-derivatives, the "financial
weapons
of mass destruction" that shadow banks like Lehman Brothers misused to
bring
down the global economy in 2008.
Enabling Wall Street in this way was Bill Clinton's mortal sin, making him
an accomplice to the economic crime of the century. He was a well-paid
accomplice at that, "earning" some $250 million from going to work for the
Wall Street mob after he left the Oval Office. Having shared royally in the
pay-off, Hillary has never confronted either the economic crime or Bill's
complicity in it. Since she's too smart - and too experienced - not to have
seen them both, she's telling us that she would be likely to do much the
same.
Krugman misses this. The choice in the Democratic primaries, as he sees it,
is between Bernie Sanders' whole-loaf idealism, which Krugman calls
self-indulgent, and Hillary's half-a-loaf pragmatism, which he prefers. In
reality, choosing Hillary comes down to giving the whole loaf to Wall
Street
while barely leaving crumbs for the rest of us. Except for the
self-serving,
where's the pragmatism in that?
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
