In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Democrats, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons," Paul Krugman would have us know:
"[I]s Mrs. Clinton’s promise to take a tough line on the financial industry credible? Or would she, once in the White House, return to the finance-friendly, deregulatory policies of the 1990s?
Well, if Wall Street’s attitude and its political giving are any indication, financiers themselves believe that any Democrat, Mrs. Clinton very much included, would be serious about policing their industry’s excesses. And that’s why they’re doing all they can to elect a Republican."
Even a mention of the dealings of the Clinton Foundation in Krugo's op-ed? Of course not. Moreover, who cares if the banks have been some of the Clinton Foundation's biggest donors?
Consider also a July 21, 2015 CNBC article entitled "Clinton rakes in Wall Street cash amid tough talk" by Jacob Pramuk, which informs us:
"During her nascent presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for expanded regulation of the financial system, slammed wealth disparity and pushed for tougher punishment on individual rule breakers.
All of that rhetoric has mattered little to Wall Street. Already among the biggest donors to Clinton's political career, employees of some megabanks have funneled big money into her bid for the 2016 nomination.
Employees of five financial firms—Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Merrill Lynch—gave about $290,000 to Clinton's campaign committee through June 30, according to a MapLight analysis of Federal Election Commission data. While it makes up less than 1 percent of the roughly $47 million raised by Clinton's committee this cycle, it follows a precedent set in her 2008 presidential campaign, when the firms' employees were among her biggest donors."
Never mind, Paul. You just keep the unconscionable twaddle coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment