Clinton Disses Wall Street, Calls for Foreclosure Moratorium

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Previous | Main | Next »

Clinton Disses Wall Street, Calls for Foreclosure Moratorium

December 05, 2007 4:04 PM

ABC News' Kate Snow and Eloise Harper Report: One day before Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson are set to offer the administration"s prescription for the mortgage foreclosure crisis, Senator Hillary Clinton called on Wall Street to make urgent changes.

"I'm here today to call on Wall Street to do its part to help end the foreclosure crisis that is devastating middle class families and threatening our economy," Clinton said.

Clinton claimed credit for suggesting the administration convene a conference to study the issue, repeatedly suggesting that the Bush administration was following her lead and not the other way around.

Clinton is calling for a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures for subprime, owner-occupied homes. She also called on lenders to freeze the monthly rate on subprime adjustable rate mortgages, with the freeze lasting at least five years or until the mortgages have been converted into affordable, fixed-rate loans. And she would have mortgage lenders provide status reports on the number of mortgages they have modified.

Clinton said if Wall Street did not act voluntarily, she would propose legislation. She was also careful to suggest her ideas did not amount to a "bail out" of the industry.

"What I'm proposing is a comprehensive work-out, not a bailout," she said.

Clinton said Wall Street doesn't bear sole responsibility for the crisis, but she said it "not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn’t have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned would end in foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped distribute risk. I say, Wall Street shifted risk away from the people who knew what was going on and onto the people who didn't."

While she talked about Wall Street, Clinton never actually set foot on the famous thoroughfare, choosing to announce her proposals at the NASDAQ market site in New York's Times Square rather than the more conservative NYSE, where she might not have been as warmly welcomed.

December 5, 2007 in Bush, George W., Tancredo, Tom | Permalink | User Comments (14)

User Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Has she graduated from Obama attacks yet?
Or she has just learnt the hard way like Edwards.

New polls out by Political Wire with Obama at 32% and Edwards and Clinton tied at 25%

Hilary going to lose flat!

Posted by: EE | Dec 5, 2007 4:28:07 PM

if it isn't a bail-out for the industry then what is it? It will allow them to stay solvent while still collecting on loans they would have otherwise had to foreclose on. This does nothing for the millions who have already lost their homes and are in the final stages of foreclosure. It has not only been the adjustable rate mortgages it has been high medical costs, high fuel and utility costs, and loss of wages and jobs that have contributed to an inability to keep up with mortgages.
ALL this plan will do is bail out the industry. Any assistance they offer on home loans will still be based on credit and that has already been screwed for most of these people.

Posted by: Louis | Dec 5, 2007 4:55:21 PM

Hillary is winning hands down. She has the men and women to put pragmatic policies in place to turn our ever failing economy around.

Posted by: John | Dec 5, 2007 5:06:41 PM

If anyone will put this country in a bad recession outside of Bush it would be OBAMA and I can see what college did for him. Nothing!! Even if he wins Iowa it doesn't matter because Bill Clinton lost Iowa and went on to win the presidency twice. Hillary was advised to skip Iowa but she went anyway. I almost missed that state on the map. Ahe really doesn't need it. She should have been campaigning in California, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, and New York. Those are the states to go after not these squeeze box states.If I was Hillary I would let Obama have those states, he needs them because he's not going to win that many. Hillary will win the nomination and so will Giuliani. I like Hillary and hope she wins but if she doesn't I would like to see Giuliani in the white house. And I am not republican but all the rivals on both sides of the fence of Hillary and Giuliani are not ready to become president.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Dec 5, 2007 6:39:39 PM

A few weeks ago in a debate, Hillary said that the want a freeze on US trade agreements. The moderator asked her if she would support the Peru Trade Agreement, she said ‘No’. Today on CNBC she said that she does support the agreement. Does anyone know where Hillary stands on any issue?

Posted by: Wesley | Dec 5, 2007 7:32:23 PM

ON the coat tails of the Bush admiistration.... wow Hillary has sunk to a new low

Posted by: Dennis | Dec 5, 2007 8:10:26 PM

Iowa is just the first state to vote for the two party candidates. How they vote is not of any concern for us here in New Yawwwk!

Posted by: Maria | Dec 5, 2007 8:11:09 PM

ROFL! When Hillary's supporters say that she is winning hands down, you know they are living in the past. or...... they ...just..dont..uhhhh.....

Posted by: jake | Dec 5, 2007 9:49:16 PM

the pros who know say that if hillary loses iowa (which she will barring any major catastrophe in Obamas case)the effects are that Obama will gain an immediate 9 points going into NH. and if that is enough for him to win NH. then Hillary likely has an announcement to make. so, bottom line, watch NH and if Obama pulls within 9 percentage points of Hillary there, lets just say, dont knock Obama down too hard fellow dems, we are going to need him.

Posted by: jake | Dec 5, 2007 9:54:17 PM

This upcoming election is not about a man or a woman. It is and must be about the future of not only the country we live in but what we must influence in the world as a whole. Looking inward our country (USA) has been negligent in providing leadership at home and abroad for the past 16 years. As a result we find the world as we have created it and the world is much more dangerous today than it has been for 45 years. So this election should focus on chracter, leadeship and vision. It is time for those of us from the baby boomer generation to suport a new leadership model. We have manage to throw the baby out with the bath water. Two boomers as "President" is enough. Therefore I do not support Senator Clinton because I feel she represents the things that are wrong with our country, and she provides no vision for tomorrow.

Posted by: murl41 | Dec 5, 2007 11:35:58 PM

Posted by: murl41 | Dec 5, 2007 11:40:57 PM

John: Hillary is winning hands down?
Winning What? What Planet are you from?
She's losing to OBama in Iowa and about to fall behind him in New Hampshire!
By the way Brightness the Economy is doing just fine and has been good for the past 7 years! Duh!

Posted by: reaganfan | Dec 6, 2007 12:02:18 AM

Time and again: Obama leads and Hillary follows.

Obama tells Wall street "what they need to hear and not what they want to hear" many weeks ago. And finally Hillary imitates.

What took her so long?

Guess: Mark Penn hadn't completed his polling about Wall street until today.

Posted by: meg | Dec 6, 2007 2:33:41 AM

Yes, the fat's in the fryer...go Hillary...I thought it was interesting that Wallstreet representatives did not show up for the National meeting of mayors regarding the morgage crisis. Also what is going to happen to seniors who invested in houses for their retirement? Many seniors don't have access to insider trading.

Posted by: Sandra Lea | Dec 6, 2007 1:50:32 PM

Post a comment