Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:30 PM Nov 2015

Meet the Wall Street Banker Backing Bernie Sanders

Meet the Wall Street Banker Backing Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders hasn’t made too many friends on Wall Street, probably because he makes statements like this on programs like CNN's "State of the Union":

"I think that the business model of Wall Street is fraud. I think these guys drove us into the worst economic downturn in the history of America. I think they're at it again.”

snip>

One banker who has contributed to Bernie Sanders is Paul Ryan, a partner at Hayfield Financial, a firm that advises private equity and hedge funds. He's been on Wall Street for 30 years and says the financial system has become so complex, so manipulated, and corrupt that only Bernie Sanders can save it.

“The whole understanding of Wall Street that I have comes from Judge Brandeis [who said], ‘Sunlight is the greatest of disinfectants,’ something that we seem to have forgotten,” Ryan says. “Wall Street has gotten dark and complex in the last 50 years. There’s disintermediation of the banks, and everything that was clear and understood we’ve now murked up.”


More> http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/find-out-why-wall-street-banker-backing-bernie-sanders/
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Meet the Wall Street Banker Backing Bernie Sanders (Original Post) Live and Learn Nov 2015 OP
I am surprised Sanders did not add he voted on Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #1
Here you go, right from Bernie's senate site: Live and Learn Nov 2015 #2
Yes it was passed on 2000 and Sanders voted for it. Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #3
And Clinton signed it in to law. Here is and explanation of what happened: Live and Learn Nov 2015 #4
Sanders voted for the bill, it had a lot to do with the finanical crisis. Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #5
Good grief. He was snookered in to voting for a bill that CLINTON signed in to law. Live and Learn Nov 2015 #6
It has to be voted on before Clinton could sign it. Does this mean he was for it Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #9
Nope, he was for a different version of it. I already posted everything for you. Live and Learn Nov 2015 #10
Or Phil Gramm's lousy law or Wall Street lobbyists' lousy law Jack Rabbit Nov 2015 #11
Don't feed the trolls. It only makes them hungrier. Ned_Devine Nov 2015 #12
trolls are so predictable. roguevalley Nov 2015 #16
THIS. nt navarth Nov 2015 #22
don't bother. Armstead Nov 2015 #25
When I studied Civics, Congress passed laws in both houses and was then sent to Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #29
Still Clinton's law. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #30
Voted on by Sanders. It is his voting record. Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #31
Clinton owns it. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #32
Your acquisation is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response. rhett o rick Nov 2015 #7
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING..AT ALL??? pangaia Nov 2015 #14
Omg, you still don't understand what happened? beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #18
Bait and switch bill. nt valerief Nov 2015 #13
Once again you guys manage to get the #1 response slot. Seems like a tactic. But it rhett o rick Nov 2015 #8
With all due respect to thinkabout it,, pangaia Nov 2015 #15
They have to be so disciplined to be able to get that first response slot. Sad. nm rhett o rick Nov 2015 #17
Hmmm.. I never thought about that.. pangaia Nov 2015 #24
Once you start noticing it. It's a tactic. nm rhett o rick Nov 2015 #26
Lol! Could it be that Senator Sanders is just another "bankster"? Say it ain't so, Bernie! beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #20
Oh my, I had missed that thread. Live and Learn Nov 2015 #21
That was awesome. They brought that meme over from the cave. beam me up scottie Nov 2015 #23
You know what? You don't get to drag Bernie, Hillary or any other politician who PatrickforO Nov 2015 #27
He did, but not the way you are implying passiveporcupine Nov 2015 #28
K&R. JDPriestly Nov 2015 #19

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
1. I am surprised Sanders did not add he voted on Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:49 PM
Nov 2015

Which contributed to the financial crisis.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
2. Here you go, right from Bernie's senate site:
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:55 PM
Nov 2015

Never Say You're Sorry (The Nation)
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

By Christopher Hayes

Odds are you've never heard of Gary Gensler, the man President Obama has nominated to run the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). But it's slightly more likely you've heard of Brooksley Born, the woman who held that position under Clinton in the late 1990s. Amid the cascading financial crisis and cries of "Nobody could have predicted!" from many of those who were instrumental in bringing it about, Born has emerged as one of the rare voices that warned of the perils ahead. In 1997 she began to sound the alarm about the growth in the derivatives market, which, unlike traditional futures, were not traded on a regulated exchange. Born argued that derivatives should be brought under regulatory supervision, or they "could pose potentially serious dangers to our economy."

She proved prescient. These instruments, specifically credit default swaps, increased risk throughout the global financial system, eventually bringing down AIG, the world's largest insurance conglomerate. George Soros, economist Alan Blinder and many others now name the failure to regulate credit default swaps as one of the prime causes of the collapse.

But in 1998 powerful voices close to the Clinton administration--Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan--argued that the derivatives market was just fine. They had allies among the Wall Street banks who were making money hand over fist in the unregulated, over-the-counter market.

Then there was Phil Gramm, the mastermind behind the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which definitively kept derivatives unregulated. Attached to a massive omnibus bill during the lame-duck Congress in December 2000, while the nation's attention was captivated by Bush v. Gore, the CFMA passed overwhelmingly in both houses and was signed into law by President Clinton. But Gramm wasn't sneaking anything past the White House, which had hammered out the details in lengthy negotiations with the senator. And one of the men charged with shepherding the bill through Congress was none other than the Treasury's under secretary for domestic finance, Gary Gensler.

Gensler was well qualified to dive into the arcana, having spent eighteen years at Goldman Sachs before taking a job at Treasury. When it came to derivatives, he shared the prevailing deregulatory ethos. (He declined to speak to me on the record for this column.) The New York Times editorial board found Obama's nomination of Gensler "troubling." Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who chairs the Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over Gensler's nomination, released a statement saying that he is "concerned about the deregulatory orientation in this nominee's past." And fellow committee member Bernie Sanders issued this terse statement: "It is imperative that we not continue the same mistaken policies that got us into this mess in the first place. I have real concerns."

In Gensler's defense, he did do regulatory penance. He worked for Senator Paul Sarbanes helping to craft Sarbanes-Oxley, and he wrote a book criticizing the mutual fund industry for the ways it rips off investors. But the fact remains: on the biggest issue of commodity futures regulation in the past decade, he was a star player on the team that got it exactly wrong.

It's not just Gensler, of course: many on the Obama economic team, most notably Summers, director of the National Economic Council, facilitated the creation of the bubble economy and the deregulatory mayhem that brought us to this moment. Indeed, Summers, who has consolidated his power in the White House to the point that the press refers to him as Obama's "chief economic adviser," was a proponent of policies--from the lifting of capital controls in developing economies to the repeal of Glass-Steagall--that proved spectacularly misguided.

So one might ask: why do these people keep getting plum jobs? Two reasons. The first is a simple rule about Washington, which is that membership in the establishment comes with lifetime tenure. Working inside the Beltway means never having to say you're sorry. If Henry Kissinger, international man of mystery cum war criminal, can flit around Washington and be fondly invoked in presidential debates as a sage of foreign relations--well then, everyone else, no matter what they've done, can as well.

The second reason might be called the Gus Frerotte Principle. Frerotte is a 37-year-old NFL quarterback who played most recently for the Minnesota Vikings. For most of his career he's been a middling QB. Yet he's managed to last fifteen years in the NFL, playing for seven different teams. This year he landed the starting job with the Vikings. Frerotte's not alone. There's an entire class of journeymen NFL quarterbacks who despite never quite excelling manage to hang around the league for years getting job after job on team after team. Though this often causes fans to throw up their hands in frustration ("This guy again!&quot , the reason is fairly straightforward. Being an NFL quarterback is an exceedingly difficult, complicated job, with a very steep learning curve. When a coach is deciding between a known quantity like Frerotte and some promising but untested newcomer, the incentives all push toward Frerotte.

Which brings us to Gensler. Running a regulatory body like the CFTC, like helming a pro football team, is complicated and difficult. So it's not surprising, particularly during a crisis, that there's a strong bias toward those like Gensler, Summers et al., who are "game tested." Of course, it would be far preferable to go with someone game-tested who got it right the first time--like Born. That said, having gotten things wrong in the past shouldn't necessarily be disqualifying. (Though according to one Senate aide who met with Gensler, he never offered a simple "my bad" about his role in the derivatives debacle--even behind closed doors.) Indeed, longtime journeyman Kerry Collins, whose career was not unlike Frerotte's, took the starting job on the Tennessee Titans this year and led the team to thirteen wins while making the Pro Bowl. The lesson: times change, and people sometimes learn from their mistakes.

But as the Obama administration continues to fill thousands of government positions, they'd do well to heed the words of a wise man who once said that "tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment." That was President Obama, whose primary campaign was largely predicated on the principle that having gotten something crucial, like the Iraq War, right when other people got it wrong was of such overwhelming importance that voters should elevate someone who'd been a state senator just a few years earlier to the highest office in the land over a competitor with years in Washington under her belt.

The voters agreed, and I continue to think they got it right. Maybe the president should go back and read some of his old speeches the next time there's an opening in his administration.


http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/never-say-youre-sorry-the-nation

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
4. And Clinton signed it in to law. Here is and explanation of what happened:
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 05:06 PM
Nov 2015
When Sanders voted for the House version of the CFMA in October 2000, the bill was not yet a total debacle for Wall Street accountability advocates. The legislative text Sanders supported was clearly designed to curtail regulatory oversight. The GOP-authored bill was crafted as a response to a proposal from ex-Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born to ramp up oversight of derivatives. But the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version, and it didn't draw any of the protests that the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall did. In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn't vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.

But in December, Gramm -- after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials -- added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm's workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government "shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank." That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called "Enron Loophole," which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.

This was an era in which voting against funding the federal government was considered a major governance faux pas. The bill sailed through both chambers of Congress, with few lawmakers even aware of the major new deregulatory changes.

Sanders has since hammered the CFMA, its architects and specific provisions in Senate hearings and on the Senate floor. He helped push through legislation to close the Enron loophole in 2008. He voted against the bank bailouts of 2008, and has cried foul on heavy Wall Street speculation in the derivatives market for oil, saying it needlessly drives up gas prices. He has voted to break up the largest banks, and supports reinstating the Depression-era firewall between conventional lending and risky securities trading.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-wall-street_5617f634e4b0dbb8000e5a58

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
5. Sanders voted for the bill, it had a lot to do with the finanical crisis.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 05:46 PM
Nov 2015

2008 was closing the gate the horse left through years before.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
6. Good grief. He was snookered in to voting for a bill that CLINTON signed in to law.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:10 PM
Nov 2015

This is another Clinton mistake and you can't put the blame on Bernie. Thanks for bringing another Clinton idiocy to light!

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
9. It has to be voted on before Clinton could sign it. Does this mean he was for it
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:14 PM
Nov 2015

Before he was against it? Snookered, huh, well that settles it.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
10. Nope, he was for a different version of it. I already posted everything for you.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:19 PM
Nov 2015

Are you having difficulty understanding what was previously posted?

Hard to believe you want to blame Bernie for Clinton's lousy law.

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
11. Or Phil Gramm's lousy law or Wall Street lobbyists' lousy law
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:44 PM
Nov 2015

There's plenty of blame to go around. Nevertheless, being snookered, while I wish he weren't, is much better than than being an active instigator of a fraud on the American people, like the legislators and lobbyists who wrote the bill and president who signed it.

Just think about it.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
25. don't bother.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 08:39 PM
Nov 2015

I Posted the history, and it was ignored...never let a good meme go to waste, I guess. Even if its wrong.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
29. When I studied Civics, Congress passed laws in both houses and was then sent to
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 11:57 PM
Nov 2015

The president to be signed. Bottom line Sanders voted for it, it passed by a veto proof vote and Clinton signed it. I understand how the process works and Sanders understands the process also, it was not his first time to vote.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
7. Your acquisation is so ridiculous that it doesn't deserve a response.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:10 PM
Nov 2015

And what's the bullcrap about the gate getting closed in 2008? Pres Clinton opened the gate and Obama refuses to close it.
THE F'N GATE IS STILL OPEN because the 1% want it open and the Conservative Wing of our Party, not only jump when told to but ask, "how high sirs".

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
14. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ANYTHING..AT ALL???
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:48 PM
Nov 2015

AT ALL??
AT ALL???

You just post stuff, then when you are proven wrong, or lacking in kowledge... I don't know. It's mind numbing !!

I might suggest doing a little more thinking about stuff..


 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
8. Once again you guys manage to get the #1 response slot. Seems like a tactic. But it
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:13 PM
Nov 2015

won't help. The People support Sen Sanders and the People will prevail against your Wall Street crooks.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
20. Lol! Could it be that Senator Sanders is just another "bankster"? Say it ain't so, Bernie!
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 07:23 PM
Nov 2015

You guys are still grasping at straws, even after the epic smack down in that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251640125

Hillaryous.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
23. That was awesome. They brought that meme over from the cave.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 07:34 PM
Nov 2015

I guess they didn't think that DUers would check the facts.


PatrickforO

(14,576 posts)
27. You know what? You don't get to drag Bernie, Hillary or any other politician who
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 08:59 PM
Nov 2015

voted on this stuff through the mud as long as NONE of the Wall Street lizards who actually brought us to the brink of worldwide depression aren't held accountable and jailed for their malfeasance. Because they knew what could happen and they did it anyway to eke out more and more and more profits, and then when the ceiling caved in Congress gave them $750 billion in OUR tax money to bail them out. But we don't get to share in their profits.

Otherwise, all you're doing is saying well, Bernie voted for this, which indirectly caused X, and Clinton voted for Y, which indirectly caused Z. Doesn't work. Everybody has 20/20 hindsight, so what we have to do is 1) figure out what really is our best interest, 2) tote up all the votes either candidate made on bills that supported our interests versus 3) all the 'nay' votes against stuff that goes against our interests. Then, on the strength of this actual data, we can make our decisions.

So, we already know that Bernie voted for Afghanistan, against Brady and for the CFMA. We already know Clinton voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, for the war in Iraq, and for the despicable Wall Street sponsored bankruptcy laws.

The question is how consistent has each been in supporting their positions over how many years and how clearly articulated their respective positions are.

Because bottom line, I'm still for Bernie.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
28. He did, but not the way you are implying
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 09:23 PM
Nov 2015
When Sanders voted for the House version of the CFMA in October 2000, the bill was not yet a total debacle for Wall Street accountability advocates. The legislative text Sanders supported was clearly designed to curtail regulatory oversight. The GOP-authored bill was crafted as a response to a proposal from ex-Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born to ramp up oversight of derivatives. But the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version, and it didn't draw any of the protests that the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall did. In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn't vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.

But in December, Gramm -- after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials -- added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm's workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government "shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank." That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called "Enron Loophole," which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.

This was an era in which voting against funding the federal government was considered a major governance faux pas. The bill sailed through both chambers of Congress, with few lawmakers even aware of the major new deregulatory changes.


I guess it doesn't matter how many times something is corrected. Some people will refuse to see it.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
19. K&R.
Mon Nov 30, 2015, 07:22 PM
Nov 2015

Sunshine. That is what is needed on Wall Street right now.

The new technologies have made fraud that was previously not possible a reality, I fear. But who knows what is really going on? No one. That's who.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Meet the Wall Street Bank...