Home | About | Donate

Who Voted for Wall Street?


Who Voted for Wall Street?

Josh Hoxie

During the campaign, Donald Trump said he wanted to fix our rigged economic system. And we can’t do that, he said, by counting on the people who rigged it in the first place.

He talked a big game about Wall Street and the big banks. He repeatedly called out Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street behemoth, by name in ads and speeches, characterizing the firm as controlling his rivals Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz.


"The reforms put in place to prevent a repeat of 2008 are tenuous at best" contrasts with the reality that Congress put US Taxpayers on the hook for more than $20 trillion dollars in Wall Street bailout schemes to the extent that the five too-big-to-fail banks that controlled 25% of US bank assets when they crashed the economy in 2008 will control 50% when Trump takes office next month, with no end in sight to their march to monopoly.

Its like Illinois Senator Dick Durbin told the world a decade ago when referring to Wall Street's relationship with DC...."they own the place".


Wall Street wins no matter which wing of the corporate party wins (McDonnell-Douglas, Halliburton, Abbot, Aetna and Monsanto too).


I think most of Trump's supporters will give him a pass on this. The election was about who we are as a people, a multicultural society or a society dominated by people of European ancestry. The majority said multicultural society but the electoral college which gives advantages to smaller rural states said white nationalist country


You are correct but this is going to be the finale of the Great Looting. When they are done, the USA, USA is going to look like Somalia or Ukraine. Listen to the first segment of BAR for week of Dec. 5. The gang is forming up now.



I left the USA long ago (thank heavens) but still keep up on the news because, much as I loathe to admit it, as the US goes, so goes much of the rest of the world.

Though Hillary and Trump are carbon copies of each other (only the gender is different), two of my favourite "alternate" news economists have so far failed to see Trump as he is.

Gerald Celente - has consistently talked about Obama's "white shoe boys" - Geitner, Michael Froman, etc. In a recent Trends In The News telecast, he stated that Trump isn't appointing the same people and so his appointments are somehow "new" and "untarnished" Tell me, Mr. Celente, what is it about Mnuchin and Bannon that is not "white shoe boy"? (Sorry, can't find the youtube link right now)

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: He has consistently railed against the big banks and yet, in a recent interview said that Trump needs to be given a chance. The folks Trump is appointing to his cabinet are new to politics and so maybe he can control them. What? Hello?? Are you kidding me? Dr. Roberts keeps talking about how Trump is not going to start nuclear war with Russia. Well, Mr. Roberts, there are many different kinds of war and nuclear war can start with a spark from sources not even considered. While he might not confront Russia directly, Trump's economic proposals and economic advisors will hurt people WORLD WIDE. Civil unrest (due to economic poverty) can lead to nuclear war.

Two people that I used to highly respect are on the Trump wagon. How very very very sad.

Just like Hillary, Trump will do NOTHING to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor - he will very likely widen it. Trump's version of the white shoe boys will ensure that more and more people will have less and less. And then there will most definitely be war.


In my world, if a candidate for President of the U.S. was caught in a lie, he/she would be disqualified. Why is there no penalty for perjury?


Sometimes I think we need something like what happened in the movie "Dave" with Kevin Kline. The part where he brought in his accountant to fix the budget. :confused:


Nobody should really be surprised by this. During the campaign, Trump called for tax cuts for the rich and the deregulation of the already weakly regulated Wall Street.


Political campaign speech is not "under oath" so no legal penalty for their purgery could apply. They only way they could be penalized would be to have a majority of the electorate suddenly develop an intense intolerance for politicians who tell blatant lies, and there doesn't seem much chance of that happening any time soon.


Thanks for the link!


Who voted for Wall St.?


Everyone who did not cast a vote for Jill.