What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squis says she wasn't convicted, so it doesn't matter.  Tim says it was explained away by a book.  Meanwhile, a town was declared a disaster area, water polluted, but no matter.
Um, no, that wasn't what I was saying. People keep propping up this Straw Man. You and others always skip over the part here (as with everything else) that no charges were ever brought, so it is not, as you infer, that she was charged and not convicted, but that she was never charged. Apparently didn't rise to the level at the time that the SEC (or whoever regulates cattle futures contracts) thought it was this blatant criminal act that you keep insisting it is. And again, if there was substance to this, we would have heard about it from HIllary's opponents in 2008, but not a peep out of any of her Democratic rivals, probably because there really was nothing to see here. You can keep talking about it (and I am sure you will) but it won't fly any better in 2016.

 
New NBC poll for New York: 

Hillary 57%

Bernie 40%
NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll

I saw this one this morning and did some review of it before I started work. I don't know if this concerns you in a poll, given what we know about each candidate's voter demographics, but...

Survey details for respondents who are likely democratic primary voters:

Men 42%

Women 58%

Under 45 41%

45 or older 59%

New York demographics:

Men: 48.4%

Women: 51.6%

under 45: 11.5 million

45+: 7.8 million

Racial demographics are handled similarly.  I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Either way, it was before the debate - 4/13 was the end date.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh please....it's absurd to think that 99% of the people that think Hillary did something wrong with the handling of her email are people that already disliked her. That is how you view things in your warped view of Hillary. Once again you try and pass off an opinion as fact.
I was specifically referring to this thread. 99% of the people IN THIS THREAD. 

 
So/ if BeaverCleaver wants to prove me wrong, I'll accept as proof one person In this thread who was a Clinton fan but now believes she engaged in criminal behavior as a result of the email scandal. Just one will do it. 

 
I suppose you are free to make up whatever you like.  But I am pretty sure there were several who said they voted for Hillary against Obama, so your number would be way off.  
I don't recall that. But show me somebody who changed because of this issue and I will admit that I was wrong. 

 
So/ if BeaverCleaver wants to prove me wrong, I'll accept as proof one person In this thread who was a Clinton fan but now believes she engaged in criminal behavior as a result of the email scandal. Just one will do it. 
You are moving the bar a bit.  You started off as saying doing something wrong and are moving it to engaged in criminal behavior.  

 
Um, no, that wasn't what I was saying. People keep propping up this Straw Man. You and others always skip over the part here (as with everything else) that no charges were ever brought, so it is not, as you infer, that she was charged and not convicted, but that she was never charged. Apparently didn't rise to the level at the time that the SEC (or whoever regulates cattle futures contracts) thought it was this blatant criminal act that you keep insisting it is. And again, if there was substance to this, we would have heard about it from HIllary's opponents in 2008, but not a peep out of any of her Democratic rivals, probably because there really was nothing to see here. You can keep talking about it (and I am sure you will) but it won't fly any better in 2016.
So she wasn't charged at the time, and no one has previously beaten up about it = no substance?  Look into it yourself.  The Yahoo article Saints posted is a good start.  I hate to tell you this, but quite flatly this happened.  Hillary laundered bribe money.  No one knew to look for it initially, which is because really smart people engineered the laundering to look like commodity trades and it's not like they had algorithms to look for these anomalies then.

I'll acknowledge that this was just how politics worked back then.  There were these pesky things called campaign donation limits, so if you wanted to do a favor and didn't want to take a suitcase full of cash, you engineered another way.  It's clear the Clintons did such a favor and were seeking other ways to benefit from their assumption of influence, whether it was Bill ####### everything in a skirt or Hillary helping with shady loans or accepting shady payments.  

But don't shrug it off and pretend that you'd know about it if it were "real."  The fact this isn't more commonly known is a testament to the effective strategy the Clintons have used to create a shroud of doubt around anyone who makes allegations against them.  See it works both ways: Right wingers go overboard and lump in myth with facts.  Clinton supporters claim it's all mythology without substance.  That way it's all just a pile of mystery.  But if you look at individual cases that drip with Clinton ooze and you just take the time to smell your fingers after touching some, it don't smell like roses.  

 
I was indifferent to slightly positive for Hillary and expected to vote for her as I did for her husband. We know how that turned out. It wasn't all because of the emails but that's played a significant role.
You've been attacking her all throughout this thread as a corrupt person, a congenital liar, etc. I don't recall you citing this issue as your reason; the emails simply fit into a larger theme for you. 

 
You've been attacking her all throughout this thread as a corrupt person, a congenital liar, etc. I don't recall you citing this issue as your reason; the emails simply fit into a larger theme for you. 
I don't want to speak for bananafish, but the fact that the email scandal fits into a pattern of behavior going back 30+ years is sort of the whole point.

 
So/ if BeaverCleaver wants to prove me wrong, I'll accept as proof one person In this thread who was a Clinton fan but now believes she engaged in criminal behavior as a result of the email scandal. Just one will do it. 
Me!  Supported her in 2008 until I believed Obama was the better candidate.  Had a more warm than neutral view of her until I observed that she had tried to avoid transparency, which is obviously a big issue for me.  More I went down that rabbit hole, the more I realized she is dirty as #### and put her own interests before anything else.

As a young liberal living in Boston and LA during the Clinton years, I wasn't too different than you and Squis, but mainly because I accepted the left's talking points on face value and lived in places without much dissent from those views.  I was always willing to forgive the Clintons because I viewed them as cool as opposed to Republicans who I loathed.

So it's only recently and as a result of it being apparent that Hillary was a snake on the emails that I was open for the first time to viewing the Clintons critically.  And once open to it, frankly, it's undeniable.  I'd liken it to if you're a Giants and your view of Barry Bonds, and how that view would change if he joined the Dodgers,. You'd look back and say, yeah -- he doped.  Maybe when he was a Giant you pretended not to see all that.

Hillary has doped and is still doing mercilessly, to extend the analogy.

 
OK guys, I was wrong about the 99%. I will take Mr. Ham at his word. And Bananafish as well. 

My larger point was that most political scandals are generally seized upon by partisan opponents of the person in question (while partisan supporters defend the person). 

Does anybody dispute this? Because it's the main reason I find them dull and not worth discussing most of the time. 

 
OK guys, I was wrong about the 99%. I will take Mr. Ham at his word. And Bananafish as well. 

My larger point was that most political scandals are generally seized upon by partisan opponents of the person in question (while partisan supporters defend the person). 

Does anybody dispute this? Because it's the main reason I find them dull and not worth discussing most of the time. 
First time I ever remember having a negative view of Hillary was during an SNL skit with Kate McKinnon who just nailed the essence of her me-firstness and inability to connect with people.  And I wondered...  Why the #### is the party trying so hard to jam her down our collective throats.  This may have been months before the server news broke, but it was all part of opinion formation that congealed around this issue.

 
OK guys, I was wrong about the 99%. I will take Mr. Ham at his word. And Bananafish as well. 

My larger point was that most political scandals are generally seized upon by partisan opponents of the person in question (while partisan supporters defend the person). 

Does anybody dispute this? Because it's the main reason I find them dull and not worth discussing most of the time. 
Generally you are correct but while I haven't polled everyone in this thread regarding their political beliefs my sense is Hillary's biggest critics are Bernie supporters.

 
OK guys, I was wrong about the 99%. I will take Mr. Ham at his word. And Bananafish as well. 

My larger point was that most political scandals are generally seized upon by partisan opponents of the person in question (while partisan supporters defend the person). 

Does anybody dispute this? Because it's the main reason I find them dull and not worth discussing most of the time. 
So you love politics, but political scandals do not interest you?  68% find Hillary's actions either illegal or unethical.  When Hillary's name comes up. the first word people associate with it is 'e-mail'.  The scandal has overshadowed all other coverage.  It has had a huge impact on how people view Hillary.  Not to mention she is under a criminal investigation and the possiblity of an indictment is real.  This is getting the highest attention from the head of the FBI and the Justice Department, and even Obama has weighted in on it despite insisting he won't interfere.  It seems to be drawing the most interest amoung the public, the media, and government.  This is not just an issue being discussed by partisan opponents and definitely does not fit into some mold of 'most political scandals'.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Generally you are correct but while I haven't polled everyone in this thread regarding their political beliefs my sense is Hillary's biggest critics are Bernie supporters.
Watching the debate last night, I found it hard to get on the Bernie train.  His appeal is only in contrast to Hillary.  Taken in isolation, I don't find him that sharp, and think he'd be an ineffective President.  But watching Hillary, I just cannot get past how coldly calculated she is.  She's smart, no doubt.  She was playing chess last night. Thing is, I just do not trust her.  She lies on top of lies, then spins it by diverting the spotlight and refusing to answer the question. It's frightening that she can overtly lie and remain so true to her tack without a hint of shame that you'll never get near the port of truth...  Just into the next destination.  She's so adept at lying,miss so ingrained into her personality, that I believe she is a bad person.  She's a reptile and everyone else around her is just a tasty mammal.  

 
So she wasn't charged at the time, and no one has previously beaten up about it = no substance?  Look into it yourself.  The Yahoo article Saints posted is a good start.  I hate to tell you this, but quite flatly this happened.  Hillary laundered bribe money.  No one knew to look for it initially, which is because really smart people engineered the laundering to look like commodity trades and it's not like they had algorithms to look for these anomalies then.
:sigh:

 
Look into it!!!  She put $1,000 down.  Trades were made on margin.  

She would have needed $12,000 to execute just the first trades.  At the very least someone made a loan to get her started.

Then virtually all of her trades over 9 months were made at the daily high.  An independent statistical model put the odds if this as trillions onto one... Meaning it did not happen.  A broker was logging these trades manually after the fact and then paying the profits into her account.

9 months later, after pulling out almost exactly $100k, one of the most prolific commodiities traders in history promptly quits.  It doesn't only stink.  It screams of laundering a bribe.  

 
Last edited:
She's a despicable person, criminally negligent (wouldn't call her a criminal per se), and will probably be the next President. She sucks. Bernie is no Obama though, so this is what we're stuck with. Hate it.

 
Look into it!!!  She put $1,000 down.  Trades were made on margin.  She would have needed $12,000 to execute just the first trades.  At the very least someone made a loan to get her started. Then virtually all of her trades over 9 months were made at the daily high.  An independent statistical model out the odds if this as trillions onto one... Meaning it did not happen.  9 months later, after pulling out almost exactly $100k, one of the most prolific commodiities traders in history promptly quits.  It doesn't only stink.  It screams of laundering a bribe.  
Gee, and if it wasn't for that pesky email scandal you would have no issue about this or anything else. Concerns about her character or ethics wouldn't exist. Funny how that played out.

 
Gee, and if it wasn't for that pesky email scandal you would have no issue about this or anything else. Concerns about her character or ethics wouldn't exist. Funny how that played out.
If you want to know why more Americans dislike Hillary than like her, why more don't trust her and think she's a liar, and why many call her a criminal - it's all out there, a consistent pattern with specific examples.  

You don't want to see it, clearly, but it's there and parts of it are rooted in truth.  I like to focus just on the areas where there's smoke and fire.  Cattle Futures is ugly.  So is her mishandling of classified data.  I'd add her lies about being in danger in Bosnia as verified.  There is a lot of speculation elsewhere, but you frankly don't even need to verify more.  Two crimes and a major lie are enough for most sane people to disqualify a Presidential candidate.

 
Last edited:
If you want to know why more Americans dislike Hillary than like her, why more don't trust her and think she's a liar, and why many call her a criminal - it's all out there, a consistent pattern with specific examples.  

You don't want to see it, clearly, but it's there and parts of it are rooted in truth.  I like to focus just on the areas where there's smoke and fire.  Cattle Futures is ugly.  So is her mishandling of classified data.  I'd add her lies about being in danger in Bosnia as verified.  There is a lot of speculation elsewhere, but you frankly don't even need to verify more.  Two crimes and a major lie are enough for most sane people to disqualify a Presidential candidate.
As I suspected, the emails are irrelevant to your antipathy towards Hillary. If this so called scandal never happened you would feel exactly the same way about her.

 
99% of the people who are convinced that Hillary did something wrong with her email server already dislike Hillary for other reasons. 
You know the answer. Look at the Democratic primaries and the numbers of Democrats who prioritize honesty and trustworthiness and you will see the overwhelming number - yes close to 90% actually - have favored Bernie Sanders throughout this thing.

 
As I suspected, the emails are irrelevant to your antipathy towards Hillary. If this so called scandal never happened you would feel exactly the same way about her.
I thought he explained it.  Is there another language besides English you would like it in?

 
If you guys want to talk more about the real, practical effect of corruption beyond mere scandal cast your eyes instead or your aspersions on the effect of the repeal of Glass Steagall and what contribution it had to the 2008 crash. The Bill and Hillary love affair with the national financial industry had the same effect as what happened to Madison Guaranty and the environmental damage caused by Tyson. Real effects on real people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I suspected, the emails are irrelevant to your antipathy towards Hillary. If this so called scandal never happened you would feel exactly the same way about her.
As stated, as late as Fall of 2014, I was warm to Hillary and had blinders on to her past (like you).  I was tweaked by the party stacking the deck, but still supportive -- though I told friends then that I doubted she'd win the nomination because people really don't connect with her.  But it also became clear that the DNC was stacked. I didn't like that either.

My disapproval started in earnest when I learned about the server.  From the get go, it was apparent that she was trying to hide things.  The first time a had a visceral reaction against Hillary was when she made the "like with a cloth" comment and it's contempt.  From there, the email scandal and what it revealed allowed me to be open to reviewing facts, which are not kind to Hillary.  

 
IN ARKANSAS, THE GAME IS CHICKEN


Don Tyson kills 25 million chickens a week on his assembly lines, 10 times as many birds as there are people in Arkansas. The annual revenue of his firm, Tyson Foods, the largest in the state's dominant industry, is twice the size of the Arkansas budget. Those figures alone help explain a key equation in the state that Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton has governed for 11 years: Chickens equal political power.

Nowhere is that connection more evident than here in the rolling hills of northwest Arkansas, where Tyson is president of a $4 billion family business that is the world's leading chicken processing company.

...

It would be an overstatement to say that Clinton and Tyson could not have succeeded without each other -- for the most part their relationship has been of mutual benefit, helping Tyson expand his operations and Clinton ascend politically.

But critics of Clinton say the relationship has had serious costs for the state he governs, both to its environment and to the middle-class taxpayers who live with an inequitable tax system that gives breaks to industry while imposing sales taxes on such necessities as food.

...

One of Clinton's most telling encounters with the ecological dangers of poultry waste involved a Tyson Foods processing plant in Green Forest, a hamlet 65 miles from here near the Missouri border.

The problem originated years before Clinton first became governor in 1979 when the plant discharged such heavy volumes of waste into the town's treatment facility that it overflowed, allowing raw sewage to enter Dry Creek, which serves as a drainage ditch for the facility.

The state pollution control agency knew of the creek's fragile state -- its limestone floor was prone to sink. But after Green Forest officials made some improvements in sewage treatment, the agency re-licensed the facility in 1977 on condition that the town reach an agreement with Tyson to partially treat its wastes.

By the time Clinton entered office, Green Forest already was proving unable to handle Tyson's sewage load. The chicken plant accounted for 90 percent of the town's waste in the late 1970s and was growing rapidly. As the treatment facility became overloaded, town officials borrowed Tyson's equipment to siphon off sludge and dump it on local fields, according to a lawsuit filed by residents.

But despite the known risks of a sinkhole opening in Dry Creek, state officials did not enforce the original 1977 permit requirement that Tyson pre-treat waste before sending it to the Green Forest facility. No fines were issued, no legal action was taken to shut down the Tyson plant or the treatment facility and no pleas for federal help were made by Arkansas authorities.

The worst fears came true in May 1983, shortly after Clinton was elected governor for the second time. A sinkhole developed in Dry Creek, and through it partially treated sewage from the Tyson plant drained into the ground water at the rate of 1 million gallons a day.

Many residents of the low-income farming town drew their water from household wells and developed chronic dysentery. Steve Work, who owns a gift shop outside Green Forest, was told by a doctor that his symptoms resembled salmonella, a bacteria that can be transmitted by poultry. Work also noticed globs of grease in his drinking water. But he did not connect his illness to the ground water until an aquifer on a neighbor's property turned septic a year later, killing hundreds of fish in the once pristine spring.

"The buzzards were camped right below the stream. We went down to investigate and it smelled like sewage," he recalled recently. "If those fish hadn't died, I believe I would have."

A 'Disaster Emergency'

...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/22/in-arkansas-the-game-is-chicken/6244e0fa-5416-4a6a-bae8-a229b854ed98/

- 1992

- This is what the cattle futures issue is really about.

Question to Hillaryites & @timschochet: read this article from 1992, what in your mind has changed in the way that the Clintons do business in government?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you guys want to talk more about the real, practical effect of corruption beyond mere scandal cast your eyes instead or your aspersions on the effect of the repeal of Glass Steagall and what contribution it had to the 2008 crash. The Bill and Hillary love affair with the national financial industry had the same effect as what happened to Madison Guaranty and the environmental damage caused by Tyson. Real effects on real people.
I look at that collapse as the biggest bank robbery in history.  Essentially it went like this:  

Banks: The economy is worth 10 units.  You own them all.  

Now it's worth 15 units.  We'll take 3, you take 2.

Whoops!  It was only worth 10.  You give back the 2 units you borrowed and we'll keep our 3.  

Net:  Economy is worth 8 units.  Banks own 3.  

 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/22/in-arkansas-the-game-is-chicken/6244e0fa-5416-4a6a-bae8-a229b854ed98/

- 1992

- This is what the cattle futures issue is really about.

Question to Hillaryites & @timschochet: read this article from 1992, what in your mind has changed in the way that the Clintons do business in government?
I think you know the answer.  And I think you also know where Hillary will come down on issues like fracking where there's big money to be gained, but possible lives lost to the pollution.  

 
Gonna chime in on the cattle futures:

Look, I'm not a Hillary hater, and I haven't seen anything in the email server scandal that really bothers me, but this article  

 https://books.google.com/books?id=fM4yPDNHtHQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=spy+magazine+hillary+clinton+cattle+futures+trading&source=bl&ots=hLmy64BKoO&sig=dHSAg_xEOINAvbnQ4mDFVJ48w2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwjKXzl5HMAhVS4mMKHXcSAg8Q6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=spy%20magazine%20hillary%20clinton%20cattle%20futures%20trading&f=false

from a 1995 SPY magazine article about her cattle futures trading is pretty damning.   This falls in line with what a lot of other people have said and linked, but this is the best article that I've read on the issue.   

I've always been puzzled by the relative silence from establishment Republicans about this scandal - it was barely referenced in the media while the Whitewater/Lewinski scandal dominated the headlines.    One obvious conclusion is that the Clintons are not the first nor the last people to be paid off in this manner.

 
Gonna chime in on the cattle futures:

Look, I'm not a Hillary hater, and I haven't seen anything in the email server scandal that really bothers me, but this article  

 https://books.google.com/books?id=fM4yPDNHtHQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=spy+magazine+hillary+clinton+cattle+futures+trading&source=bl&ots=hLmy64BKoO&sig=dHSAg_xEOINAvbnQ4mDFVJ48w2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwjKXzl5HMAhVS4mMKHXcSAg8Q6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=spy%20magazine%20hillary%20clinton%20cattle%20futures%20trading&f=false

from a 1995 SPY magazine article about her cattle futures trading is pretty damning.   This falls in line with what a lot of other people have said and linked, but this is the best article that I've read on the issue.   

I've always been puzzled by the relative silence from establishment Republicans about this scandal - it was barely referenced in the media while the Whitewater/Lewinski scandal dominated the headlines.    One obvious conclusion is that the Clintons are not the first nor the last people to be paid off in this manner.
And to me it has always surprised me that liberals and progressives do not pay attention to what Tyson was getting in return.

 
Gonna chime in on the cattle futures:

Look, I'm not a Hillary hater, and I haven't seen anything in the email server scandal that really bothers me, but this article  

 https://books.google.com/books?id=fM4yPDNHtHQC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=spy+magazine+hillary+clinton+cattle+futures+trading&source=bl&ots=hLmy64BKoO&sig=dHSAg_xEOINAvbnQ4mDFVJ48w2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwjKXzl5HMAhVS4mMKHXcSAg8Q6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=spy%20magazine%20hillary%20clinton%20cattle%20futures%20trading&f=false

from a 1995 SPY magazine article about her cattle futures trading is pretty damning.   This falls in line with what a lot of other people have said and linked, but this is the best article that I've read on the issue.   

I've always been puzzled by the relative silence from establishment Republicans about this scandal - it was barely referenced in the media while the Whitewater/Lewinski scandal dominated the headlines.    One obvious conclusion is that the Clintons are not the first nor the last people to be paid off in this manner.
You just absolutely nailed it.  I'm guessing that this and similar ways of laundering bribes was common enough that it was best to just let the story blow over.  But by no means should this issue be off the table now.  

 
New Vox piece shows that Hillary has received the most negative coverage from the media and the least positive coverage.

I'd say it's time to retire the "media is in the tank for Hillary" narrative, but as we've seen facts don't really matter, it's all about how people just know that Hillary is an evil corrupt lying witch.  

 
New Vox piece shows that Hillary has received the most negative coverage from the media and the least positive coverage.

I'd say it's time to retire the "media is in the tank for Hillary" narrative, but as we've seen facts don't really matter, it's all about how people just know that Hillary is an evil corrupt lying witch.  
Poor old lady was just standing there when that lorry ran over her. Damndest thing, poor woman.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Vox piece shows that Hillary has received the most negative coverage from the media and the least positive coverage.

I'd say it's time to retire the "media is in the tank for Hillary" narrative, but as we've seen facts don't really matter, it's all about how people just know that Hillary is an evil corrupt lying witch.  
If facts mattered more to Hillary, she wouldn't be perceived as an evil, corrupt, lying witch.  See the exchange around releasing transcripts from last night's debate, where she was booed.  She reverted to a nonsensical talking point, went on the offense about Bernie's tax returns and then went back to the talking point even after Bernie agreed to release his returns.  At least 20 other times she distorted facts, refused to answer a question, promoted a new positing in conflict with her historical ones or otherwise lied.  

Also in reference to facts not mattering.  Wondering if you can take 20 minutes and read the Spy article from 1995 and give your view on whether Hillary received laundered bribe money in 1978.  I'd say that matters.

 
Last edited:
New Vox piece shows that Hillary has received the most negative coverage from the media and the least positive coverage.

I'd say it's time to retire the "media is in the tank for Hillary" narrative, but as we've seen facts don't really matter, it's all about how people just know that Hillary is an evil corrupt lying witch.  
She's being investigated by the FBI.  That usually brings some negative media coverage.

Bill Jefferson had some pretty serious negative media coverage during his 2008 campaign, too.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
If you guys want to talk more about the real, practical effect of corruption beyond mere scandal cast your eyes instead or your aspersions on the effect of the repeal of Glass Steagall and what contribution it had to the 2008 crash. The Bill and Hillary love affair with the national financial industry had the same effect as what happened to Madison Guaranty and the environmental damage caused by Tyson. Real effects on real people.
There is a lot of debate whether repeal of Glass Steagall had anything to do with the crisis.  I did not like the repeal at the time, but the argument was made at the time that our separation of traditional banks from investment banks made our traditional banks less competitive with European financial institutions.  And it was not a close call in Congress: Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed by 362-57 in the House and 90-8 in the Senate.  It is not as if Bill waved his hand by himself and repealed the prior law.  There was substantial bipartisan support for the repeal.    

Some critics, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have long seen the changes to Glass-Steagall as a major factor in the 2008 crash. By bringing "investment and commercial banks together, the investment bank culture came out on top," Stiglitz wrote in 2009. "There was a demand for the kind of high returns that could be obtained only through high leverage and big risk-taking."

But others, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, have said the focus on Glass-Steagall is misguided. They argue other factors were more important in causing the 2008 crisis, such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy. All of that would have happened no matter the size of the big banks.

In fact, some of the financial institutions that fared the worst, such as Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, weren't part of large bank holding companies at all.

"I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis

 
And it was not a close call in Congress: Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed by 362-57 in the House and 90-8 in the Senate.  It is not as if Bill waved his hand by himself and repealed the prior law.  There was substantial bipartisan support for the repeal.    
First of all as usual thanks for the insightful comments.

As to the point, this has been discussed buried somewhere here but many to most of those voting were not really aware of what they were voting for. Clinton and the GOP leadership made a purposeful effort to limit debate and tie it in with other matters.

 
"I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."
I have no faith that anything Congress will do is going to prevent a future crisis.  It was a culture of passing out mortgages like candy and everyone in the food chain getting fatter and happier.  

 
Nate SilverVerified account @NateSilver538 6m6 minutes ago

Caucuses have mostly been in good states for Bernie, but data suggests he'd lose a net 50-100 delegates if they held primaries instead.

Nate Silver@NateSilver538 13m13 minutes ago


Also worth remembering that Sanders is up a net 150 delegates from caucuses, which can disenfranchise voters. Clinton +370 in primaries.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top