Clinton says she would break up 'big banks' if needed

MEG KINNARD, Associated Press
LISA LERER, Associated Press


NORTH CHARLESTON, South Carolina (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Saturday she is willing to split apart big financial institutions if the need arises.

The Democratic front-runner for the 2016 presidential election told a rally in South Carolina that she has the "toughest" proposals for dealing with Wall Street. She says would "break up the big banks" if necessary and hold top financial executives accountable.

"I go after not just the banks," Clinton told the crowd, pledging a tough approach to regulating the industry despite receiving tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees, donations to the Clinton family foundation and campaign cash from Wall Street in her career. "I go after the hedge funds, big insurance companies, shadow banking."

Clinton's long-running ties to Wall Street are getting a fresh look after last weekend's Democratic presidential debate. Both of her primary rivals support reinstating the law known as Glass-Steagall, which once separated commercial and investment banks.

But Clinton and her advisers argue that Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the failure of large financial institutions, such as investment bank Lehman Brothers and insurer AIG, during the Great Recession.

Clinton's allies have defended her stance. Earlier this month, former Rep. Barney Frank — a driving force behind the 2010 financial overhaul law that bears his name — said it was wrong to suggest that lawmakers who pushed for the changes were influenced by campaign donations from the financial services industry.

After her speech, Clinton officially filed her paperwork as a candidate in South Carolina's primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley also addressed the gathering separately.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-22

with the caveat "If the need irises" be assured the need will never arise.

They are big contributors , Hillary is never going to risk a great income stream.

They are big contributors , Hillary is never going to risk a great income stream.

if you got involved with them you could loose your shirt

What an idiot statement.Shows complete lack of common sense and strategic judgement. If she is going to anti 'big bank', then shut up, and wait until she is president (to the detriment of the American people and the world), otherwise don't poke the bear.

Well Hilary, you could make a start right now by NOT taking campaign contributions and backhanders from them, you don't need to wait until (I so hope you're not) President.

What an idiot statement.Shows complete lack of common sense and strategic judgement. If she is going to anti 'big bank', then shut up, and wait until she is president (to the detriment of the American people and the world), otherwise don't poke the bear.

So you dont think candidates should state their intentions if the are put into office?

They are big contributors , Hillary is never going to risk a great income stream.

if you got involved with them you could loose your shirt

yep, nothing worse than a loose shirt, I always try to buy one that fits.

Problem is that the people that control this farce we call Democracy control the big banks. This 'intention' by Clinton to appease the masses may have been more damaging to her than any number of gaffs by Trump, after all the people don't choose the next President, the owners of the Banks do Didn't Kennedy declare he was going to put an end to the Federal Reserve?

Edited November 22, 201510 yr by Andaman Al

Who is dumb enough to think that without the extreme help from congress she could do this.The house will not give in on this.

What an idiot statement.Shows complete lack of common sense and strategic judgement. If she is going to anti 'big bank', then shut up, and wait until she is president (to the detriment of the American people and the world), otherwise don't poke the bear.

So you dont think candidates should state their intentions if the are put into office?

Intentions should be stated yes but not things you will never do anything about. Politicians the world over always talk about the intentions people want to hear but they never intend to make the changes. It is simply political rhetoric.

What an idiot statement.Shows complete lack of common sense and strategic judgement. If she is going to anti 'big bank', then shut up, and wait until she is president (to the detriment of the American people and the world), otherwise don't poke the bear.

should have been done back in 2008.everyone sees through madame clinton.

Maybe she could start by breaking up her son-in-law's hedge fund started with financial help from the Clinton Foundation donors.

Naw. Then Chelsea might have to sell that multi-million dollar apartment in NYC and move back home. There's always that basement available since the server has been shut down.

A journey begins with the first step.

A president is not responsible for *everything*

If you are a free man/woman (which most Americans probably claim to be), then you could always demand to get your assets cashed, i.e. threaten a bank run.

She will say anything to get a vote.

So far she has done little on the subject.

This is a cowardly thing to say. There is no substance behind it, and she would never do it, so it is a cowardly lie. The big banks are untouchable. About as untouchable as the five families of Dark Tao, or the government ministers, mayors, and governors in the LOS, or the elite in Bangkok. It just would never happen, so it is a disingenuous to make herself look as if she has integrity, and truly cares for the common man, which she does not.

What Hillary says to her liberal socialist crowds on the campaign trail are probably miles apart from what she says to the bankers she is hosting at her fund raisers.

If her lips are moving she is lying to someone.

An interesting article on the Drudge Report today...from the New York Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Wall St. Ties Linger as Image Issue for Hillary Clinton

By PATRICK HEALY

NOV. 21, 2015

John Wittneben simmered as he listened to Hillary Rodham Clinton defend her ties to Wall Street during last weekend’s Democratic debate. He lost 40 percent of his savings in individual retirement accounts during the Great Recession, while Mrs. Clinton has received millions of dollars from the kinds of executives he believes should be in jail.

“People knew what they were doing back then, because of greed, and it caused me harm,” said Mr. Wittneben, the Democratic chairman in Emmet County, Iowa. “We were raised a certain way here. Fairness is a big deal.”

The next day he endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential race.

Article continues here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/politics/wall-st-ties-linger-as-image-issue-for-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

That would be a superb idea and is advocated by many economists and financiers world wide. It would absolutely serve the interests of the average citizen in the US. However, the fact is that those big banks are owned by the same persons that own and operate Clinton so the chances of her acting on that rhetoric is slim at best.

Maybe she could start by breaking up her son-in-law's hedge fund started with financial help from the Clinton Foundation donors.

Naw. Then Chelsea might have to sell that multi-million dollar apartment in NYC and move back home. There's always that basement available since the server has been shut down.

No, she could always move in with her best friend , Trump's daughter

in the mean time the rats are fighting for crumbs, clawing at each other while the fat cats get fatter

Yea sure either of these people have our best interest at heart

Edited November 22, 201510 yr by sirineou

Looking deeply, yes a woman....pause....(bit alarmed) is there a man in there?