Blog/America's Economic History
Posted Feb 18, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
As of January 31, Hillary has raised $163.5 million, which is more than any of the other presidential candidates. The question that comes to mind is why would the big banks back Hillary when she pretends to be willing to curb their abuse? The answer lies in what she said at her Goldman Sachs speeches. One attendee said she sounded like a managing director at Goldman. This is why she will NEVER release any transcripts of her speeches. They would doom her candidacy.
It was the Clinton Administration that did everything for the New York bankers, perhaps beside kissing their feet. They allowed interstate banking and repealed Glass-Steagall by handing the bankers students on a silver platter by eliminating their right to file bankruptcy. We would not be looking at the student loan crisis as “too big to fail,” and we certainly would not have had the boom in proprietary banking. So is it any wonder why the bankers are huge contributors to Hillary? They are buying their privileges as usual.
Now here come Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, who just happens to be a former Goldman Sachs banker, to say that the government needs to REVERSE what the Clintons did and “break up the banks.” It was Kashkari who helped to oversee the rescue of the banks during the financial crisis. He worked at the U.S. Treasury from 2006 to 2009 where he was overseeing the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that pumped $700 billion into U.S. banks during the 2007-2009 financial meltdown under the leadership of Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs acting as Secretary of the Treasury.
Kashkari has stated that the nation’s biggest banks present a potentially “nuclear” threat to the U.S. economy and regulators should consider breaking them up. He has warned that the Clinton Administration’s actions to this day have left the New York banks in the same position of “too big to fail,” which means as always, “too big to jail.”