{"id":181668,"date":"2016-04-19T18:20:00","date_gmt":"2016-04-19T23:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/04\/19\/good-point-but-wrong\/"},"modified":"2016-04-19T18:20:00","modified_gmt":"2016-04-19T23:20:00","slug":"good-point-but-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/04\/19\/good-point-but-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Good Point, But Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Over at <i>The New Republic<\/i>, David Dayen observes that <a href=\"https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/article\/132796\/dont-need-see-hillary-clinton-transcripts\">observes that that transcripts from Hillary Clinton&#8217;s speeches to the Vampire Squid are irrelevant, because she has always been in Wall Street&#8217;s pocket anyway<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">I don\u2019t want to see the transcripts from Hillary Clinton\u2019s Goldman Sachs speeches.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">The actual transcript is unnecessary because we already have enough in the public domain to know the real issue with these speeches: the rapport and camaraderie between political leaders and financial institutions, which results in a frame of mind that accepts their arguments and privileges their views. In fact, the best example of this comes from a speech that Clinton habitually touts as an example of her get-tough approach to Wall Street.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">On the stump and in debates, including last week\u2019s in Brooklyn, Clinton highlights a speech she made at Nasdaq in December 2007, in the thick of the foreclosure crisis. \u201cWhen I was serving as the senator from New York, I did stand up to the banks,\u201d Clinton said last week. \u201cI did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.\u201d<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">In the speech, available here, she castigated Wall Street for \u201cplaying a significant role in the current problems,\u201d for fueling irresponsible mortgage lending through securitization, and for having \u201cshifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.\u201d Clinton has been criticized for this speech, however, because of a few lines where she said \u201cthere\u2019s plenty of blame to go around\u201d for the housing bubble, and that \u201chomebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads.\u201d<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">You can read this as a throwaway nod to personal responsibility, a typical politician\u2019s remark, when the thrust of the speech indicts Wall Street. I would argue that spreading around responsibility for something that was a demonstrably criminal action by lenders fits with Wall Street\u2019s moralizing about deadbeat borrowers who should have known the risks. It\u2019s a form of public shaming. And it arguably led to the lack of accountability we saw for the financial crisis\u2014after all, if everybody is responsible, then ultimately nobody is responsible<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">When something could have been done to pressure mortgage servicers, Hillary Clinton, like many politicians, adopted their argument that they were prevented from helping homeowners. She believed their claims that they were hamstrung, when they weren\u2019t. And I have to believe that\u2019s attributable to proximity, access, and whose arguments get priority of place.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">Wall Street purchases that priority of place simply by donating to campaigns, bringing politicians in for chats, marinating them in its worldview. Finance executives can make very compelling arguments about the complex intricacies of the financial system. They can sound charming and smart and logical. And in a moment of truth, they can get the payoff, when a powerful politician like Hillary Clinton makes a reasonable-sounding statement about mortgage servicers needing legal immunity.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>On a strictly factual level, DDay is right:&nbsp; We do not have to read her transcripts in order to know that she is, always has been, and likely always will be be Wall Street&#8217;s stooge.<\/p>\n<p>The only question is whether Hillary and her Evil Minions<sup>\u2122<\/sup> or not she will be a bigger stooge than Barack and his Evil Minions<sup>\u2122<\/sup>.<\/p>\n<p>Needless to say, this sucks like 1000 Hoovers all going at once.<\/p>\n<p>That being said, her the fact that she is a suck up to Wall Street means nothing without sound bites for the press to make it a real issue for most of the voting public.<\/p>\n<p>That is the reality of our culture, media, and political system,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Over at The New Republic, David Dayen observes that observes that that transcripts from Hillary Clinton&#8217;s speeches to the Vampire Squid are irrelevant, because she has always been in Wall Street&#8217;s pocket anyway: I don\u2019t want to see the transcripts from Hillary Clinton\u2019s Goldman Sachs speeches. \u2026\u2026\u2026 The actual transcript is unnecessary because we already &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[970,969,1004,1002,965,1088],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corruption","category-evil","category-finance","category-good-writing","category-hillary-clinton","category-real-estate"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181668"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=181668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}