Why Wall Street Republicans Will Support Hillary Clinton in 2016
Everybody loves free stuff! So it’s no wonder that the Wall Street Republicans love Obama and will love Hillary in 2016. Quantitative Easing has artificially boosted profits on Wall Street. Billions have been made with funny money, and it’s all happened with a Democrat in the White House. Barack Obama has been very, very good to Wall Street.
These Establishment GOPers would take Jeb Bush or Chris Christie since they are Big Government Republicans. Their spending will just be in different areas. Wall Street will adjust and make money no matter who’s doing the spending. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would work to cut off the easy flow of money and cut government spending.
Unnamed sources are talking and beginning to make plans:
“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”
We’ve seen Republicans run on fiscal conservative principles only to appease the money lenders before the second term campaigning starts up. Even Ronald Reagan succumbed to deficit spending.
Trending: When Does the Bible Say Life Begins?
When it comes to almost everything, “follow the money” is the place to begin to learn what’s going to happen next. It’s no accident that the Bible warns us that “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:10).
It takes nearly a billion dollars to run a presidential campaign. That means lots of donors. The people with money want more of it. Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with wanting more money. But there is something wrong with attaining wealth through war profiteering, crony “capitalism,” and political favoring of specific industries.
Both parties play the game.
Hillary Clinton has positioned herself very well. The majority of people at the top don’t care about ethics and oaths to uphold the Constitution. They want a return on their investment. They expect something in return from the people they finance for office:
“Clinton, after all, was New York’s senator for eight years, where the financial district was a key constituency. She had many Wall Street rainmakers as advisers and friends. Her family has continued to work that network to try to stock the Clinton Foundation with a $250 million endowment before a presidential run. And she’s been out on the financial services speaking circuit, giving talks to Goldman Sachs and fireside-style chats with the heads of the Carlyle Group and the investment firm KKR.
“Clinton warmed some hearts on Wall Street during a paid, closed-press speech to Goldman Sachs executives and other big donors last year when she said of the financial crisis, in essence: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. That line, as the people on hand interpreted her speech, reflects the feelings of many financiers. They know they played a role in the 2008 financial collapse but argue that many other factors did as well, including federal housing policy and irresponsible borrowers lying on mortgage documents. Wall Street sees in Clinton someone who would not look to score easy political points at its expense.”
The ‘too big to fail’ mantra is still standard operating procedure in Washington, and it doesn’t matter which party is in power.