by Ruby Henley
Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) appeared on C-Span on January 27, 2009. He had something to say about the financial crisis of 2008. According to Kanjorski, on September 18, 2008, $550 billion dollars disappeared from America’s money market accounts. Astonishing to say the least this occurred within one to two hours.
KANJORSKI: On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.
If they had not done that, their estimation was that by two o’clock that afternoon, five-and-a-half trillion dollars would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. We’re really no better off today than we were three months ago because we’ve had a decrease in the equity positions of banks because other assets are going sour by the moment.
At the moment in history when the US Senate passed a bill to increase USA debt by another 800 plus billion dollars, the United States lost its position as the economic engine of the world. President Obama himself stated that trillion dollar deficits would exist for years to come.
The world almost experienced the collapse of the USA based economy in September 2008, and its collapse would have been sudden. I have said before one must go back in time to understand the present.
The financial crisis of 2007–2008 is considered by many economists to have been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Let’s examine the background of this devastating meltdown. It actually began in 2007 in the subprime mortgage market with further development into a full-blown banking crisis.
The collapse of the bank Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008 was the first indicator. This led to the bailouts of financial institutions. The crisis was followed by a global economic downturn leading to the European debt crisis.
The Obama bailout of banks followed. Nevertheless, stock markets still dropped worldwide. Consumer wealth declined in the trillions, and, of course, the middle-class American tax payer paid the price.
What followed is one of the most disturbing incidents the American taxpayer has ever had to endure.
Banks which received taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits. Shockingly, the rewards came even with poor bank performance.
The benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management an AP review of federal securities documents found.
But get ready for the real SHOCKER – the total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for the banks who accepted taxpayer dollars from hard working Americans.
The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help.
Among the findings:
- The average paid to each of the banks’ top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
- Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company’s top five executives received a total of $242 million.
- This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives “whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels.” Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.
- The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.
- Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Virginia-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.
- John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.
- Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.
Let’s change gears; going to 2016 to examine a Podesta email concerning Hillary Clinton. You will receive insight into the Democratic machine by reading these leaked emails from Wikileaks.
Most of us are aware of Clinton’s secret speeches to Wall Street bankers; however, I would like to quote from a leaked John Podesta email. wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy.
In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-speeches-are-cozy-for-wall-streeters-but-closed-to-journalists/article/2553294/section/author/dan-friedman
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*
*Clinton: “But If Everybody’s Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”*
CLINTON: “all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.” [Clinton Speech For National
Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]
*CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL
*Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry
” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The
People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.”* “I mean, it’s still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”
[Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
*CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING*
*Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions.
*“Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it’s also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.”
[Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
*Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising
A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You
Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.”*
“So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you’re out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it’s something — I would like — you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it’s very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign — I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it’s so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that’s basically what we’re in for. So we’re kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it’s even harder now.”
[Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership
Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
*CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR*
*Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole.
*In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay.
[Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
*CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES*
*Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across The U.S. Government.”*
CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they’re trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They’re trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it’s not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin’s authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don’t know. I have a hard time following it.
[Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]
*Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most — Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” *
“I mean, let’s face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most — or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn’t have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.”
[Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
*Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn’t Take Our Computers, We Couldn’t Take Our Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. *
“I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we’re the only people in the world trying to figure out what’s going on. I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn’t take our computers, we couldn’t take our personal devices, we couldn’t take anything off the plane because they’re so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we’d leave them on the plane.”
[Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
*Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.”*
“You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn’t even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you’re thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can’t expect people to change if I don’t try to model it and lead it.”
[Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
*Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. *
“And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes. Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.”
[Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
As you can see, Hillary Clinton is a complete fraud and hypocrite. She admits she needs a huge amount of campaign funds from Wall Street, and she got them. You have to remember President Trump did not need the money Clinton did. It only stands to reason, the Presidency is better defended by someone, who did not have to accept funds from Wall Street to win.
You must note the hypocrisy shown in the leaked email clearly showing she knew how great the threat of hacking was – yet she did not protect the National Security of the United States. AND SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT – ENDANGERING LIVES OF AGENTS IN THE FIELD.
It is very interesting to note a conversation between Clinton and Bernie Sanders concerning Wall Street and the bailouts.
In the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton charged Bernie Sanders for opposing, in January 2009, the release of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds that were used in part to bail out General Motors and Chrysler. “When it came down to it, you were either for saving the auto industry or you were against it,” Clinton said. “I voted to save the auto industry.”
Sanders objected, and said that Clinton “went out of her way to mischaracterize my history.” He said his vote against releasing the TARP funds was based on opposition to the Wall Street bailout – how it was conducted, and brought up a vote in December 2008 in which he supported direct help for the automotive industry.
SANDERS – “I have deep respect for President-elect Obama and I very much appreciate the difficult job he has in trying to remedy the economic damage done by the Bush administration’s reckless policies. Nonetheless, I have strong reservations about continuing this bailout without strong taxpayer protections written into law. I also object to using middle-class taxpayer money to bail out the exact same financial institutions whose greed and recklessness led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
You see the truth here – Clinton voted for the bailout not for the automotive industry but for Wall Street. Sanders on the other hand actually was against the bailout and understood it would destroy the American taxpayer – Clinton clearly did not show concern for the middle-class – only for Wall Street.
That is why the DNC had to get rid of Sanders – among others.
In conclusion, was Hillary Clinton financed by Wall Street money in her Presidential campaign? Did Trump really finance his campaign himself as he claimed? If you consider these questions, you will understand that it matters – it definitely does. Clinton owed Wall Street – Trump did not.
Wall Street contributions benefiting Clinton have come from a group of ultra-wealthy, liberal donors who work in Wall Street finance.
The figures for Trump and super PACs backing him total far less than $2 million.
Trump has often said he is “self-funding” his campaign. Of course, his campaign accepts contributions, but there’s no question he has funded his campaign himself – which clearly explains why President Trump is constantly ridiculed and clearly under attack by the Deep State.
“There are hints in apparently leaked email discussions among Clinton’s campaign staff that bankers are not far off the mark when they count on her to tread lightly.
Pressed during the campaign by progressive Democrats to call for a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act that would require separation of commercial and investment banking, Clinton ultimately refused. She also weighed another progressive favorite – a tax on financial transactions- but instead recommended a far narrower plan to tax only canceled orders by high speed traders.
Ultimately, what bankers most like about Clinton is that she is not Donald Trump.
Many financiers fear her unorthodox Republican rival could disrupt global trade, damage geopolitical relationships and rattle markets, industry analysts and participants say.
“Those are the kind of things that corner offices think about,” said Karen Shaw Petrou of Federal Financial Analytics Inc, whose firm advises financial firms about U.S. regulatory policy. “The overriding concern about Trump has dominated people’s thinking.”
Trump’s candidacy has upended traditional political alliances and bankers that usually contribute more to the Republicans have been flinging money at Clinton.
Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries have been sending her $10 for every $1 they contributed to Trump, according to a Reuters analysis. In 2012, the same group contributed twice as much to Republican candidate Mitt Romney as it did to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.
People who work for hedge funds and private equity firms have contributed more than $56 million to Clinton’s presidential campaign and the supporting groups that face no legal cap on donations. Trump’s campaign and related groups received just $243,000 from donors in the same sector, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.”