Bill Clinton sided with republicans against his own political party to repeal Glass Steagall. He is just as much to blame for the financial crisis as anybody, yet the corporate news media omits this important information from the news. It is called propaganda by omission.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
Bernie Sanders could have mentioned it during the debates but said nothing. Trump says nothing as well. It must be role playing by the candidates to fool you all into thinking these debates are real and not what they really are, staged debates to omit what they do not want you to know. This is your so called democracy.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy would Sanders mention something Hillary didn't do? Should Clinton throw Melania's plagiarizing in Trumps face?
Bill Clinton sided with republicans against his own political party to repeal Glass Steagall. He is just as much to blame for the financial crisis as anybody, yet the corporate news media omits this important information from the news. It is called propaganda by omission.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-g ...[text shortened]... are, staged debates to omit what they do not want you to know. This is your so called democracy.
Furthermore, if Bill sided with Republicans, that's more of an indictment of the GOP than anything else. Imagine Trump saying "your husband shamefully sided with our party to bring about crises". Wouldn't that be idiotic (even for Trump)?
Originally posted by vivifyBill is campaigning for Hillary, right? You want to have it both ways. You want Hitlery to benefit from Bill's popularity but not dragged down by his blatant corruption and damage to the economy. That will be hard to do if Trump decides to mention it, but he is only there to help Hitlery win so he does not get brought down because of his taxes under audit, the slowest audit in American history.
Why would Sanders mention something Hillary didn't do? Should Clinton throw his wife's plagiarizing in Trumps face?
Furthermore, if Bill sided with republicans, that's more of an indictment of the GOP than anything else. Imagine Trump saying "your husband shamefully sided with our party to bring about crises". Wouldn't that be idiotic (even for Trump)?
Nothing says Trump would have to mention Bill's betrayal to his own party. He could easily leave that part out for others to point out, like Jill Stein. Oh, that's right. Jill Stein is omitted from the corporate news media like everyone else who is not a corporate whore!
06 Aug 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainVery good point, I think I only heard about Glass-Steagall a few trillion times.
Bill Clinton sided with republicans against his own political party to repeal Glass Steagall. He is just as much to blame for the financial crisis as anybody, yet the corporate news media omits this important information from the news. It is called propaganda by omission.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-g ...[text shortened]... are, staged debates to omit what they do not want you to know. This is your so called democracy.
06 Aug 16
Originally posted by Metal BrainSanders repeatedly brought up his support for reinstating Glass-Steagall including at the debates. https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/
Bill Clinton sided with republicans against his own political party to repeal Glass Steagall. He is just as much to blame for the financial crisis as anybody, yet the corporate news media omits this important information from the news. It is called propaganda by omission.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-g ...[text shortened]... are, staged debates to omit what they do not want you to know. This is your so called democracy.
The Republican platform endorses reinstating Glass-Steagall though it oddly calls for eviscerating the tepid restrictions on banking in Dodd-Frank.http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-18/republican-platform-under-trump-backs-glass-steagall-s-return
So the issue is out there though the actual possibility of a Republican Congress reinstating major controls on big business and banking is near zero.
06 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI wonder why control freak laws that never worked in the past, keep being resuscitated as solutions to problems more complex than those they failed to correct in the past.
Sanders repeatedly brought up his support for reinstating Glass-Steagall including at the debates. https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/
The Republican platform endorses reinstating Glass-Steagall though it oddly calls for eviscerating the tepid restrictions on banking in Dodd-Frank.http://www.bloomberg.com/polit ...[text shortened]... ty of a Republican Congress reinstating major controls on big business and banking is near zero.
Originally posted by normbenignLMAO! Glass-Steagall worked fine for over six decades and then it was repealed and within a decade the financial system collapsed due to reckless behavior by banks that GS would have largely prevented.
I wonder why control freak laws that never worked in the past, keep being resuscitated as solutions to problems more complex than those they failed to correct in the past.
Banks need to be controlled by sensible regulations and only Randian fools think otherwise (one Randian fool, Alan Greenspan, admitted as much AFTER 2008).
06 Aug 16
Originally posted by no1marauderYour saying it doesn't make it so. Why was it repealed? Proximity is not causation. Within a decade? That's forever in today's world of instant international communications. What constitutes "working"?
LMAO! Glass-Steagall worked fine for over six decades and then it was repealed and within a decade the financial system collapsed due to reckless behavior by banks that GS would have largely prevented.
Banks need to be controlled by sensible regulations and only Randian fools think otherwise (one Randian fool, Alan Greenspan, admitted as much AFTER 2008).
You could make the same argument in favor of slavery. Try it.
Originally posted by normbenignYou know the story and are being dishonest. Wall Street banks would not have been able to transform themselves into poorly run hedge funds if the GS had not been repealed.
Your saying it doesn't make it so. Why was it repealed? Proximity is not causation. Within a decade? That's forever in today's world of instant international communications. What constitutes "working"?
You could make the same argument in favor of slavery. Try it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree 100% There are folks that have not grasped the fact that business's must be governed just as people are. Doing away with regulations (deregulation) is like giving a monkey a hand grenade, sooner or later something bad is going to happen!
LMAO! Glass-Steagall worked fine for over six decades and then it was repealed and within a decade the financial system collapsed due to reckless behavior by banks that GS would have largely prevented.
Banks need to be controlled by sensible regulations and only Randian fools think otherwise (one Randian fool, Alan Greenspan, admitted as much AFTER 2008).
09 Aug 16
Originally posted by mchillBill Clinton's presidency really was a joint monarchy and Hillary had a big, activist role throughout. She was never just a "First Lady." I agree that this record is relevant to her prospective future reign and I also agree that they shifted far to the right, accepting Republican agendas, because the Democrats lost faith in progressive politics in the lght of Reagan's landslide victory. "Triangulation" and the "Third Way" were disasters for the Left in the US and were emulated with glee by Blair in the UK. In both cases, they simply entailed progressive parties being hijacked for reactionary politics.
I agree 100% There are folks that have not grasped the fact that business's must be governed just as people are. Doing away with regulations (deregulation) is like giving a monkey a hand grenade, sooner or later something bad is going to happen!
The failure of regulation included repeal of Glass Steagall but restoring Glass Steagall does not magically solve the problem of ineffectual regulation. It is not one act but regulation as a system that remains in poor shape. Behind that problem, which is global, also lies the problem of trade imbalances which will continue to destabilise our economies; this includes China - US imbalances, Northern Europe and the rest imbalances, and generally the problem of a savings glut in some parts of the globe seeking investment opportunities in other regions that are sadly failing to invest. Look for example at the US and UK abject failure to invest in physical infrastructure, health, education or in decent social housing.
e.g. http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
10 Aug 16
Originally posted by finneganAs you rightly point out, the problem is a global one. And profit like water seeks the container of least resistance to its flow or pooling. The notion that any nation state can address its fiscal issues independently of global governance is a flawed proposition.
Bill Clinton's presidency really was a joint monarchy and Hillary had a big, activist role throughout. She was never just a "First Lady." I agree that this record is relevant to her prospective future reign and I also agree that they shifted far to the right, accepting Republican agendas, because the Democrats lost faith in progressive politics in the lght ...[text shortened]... .com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article
10 Aug 16
4 edits
The profit motive encourages investment in products services and areas that promise the best return on investment at the least possible risk. Global trade agreements guarantee money will flow in directions that meet those criteria and will flow in those directions faster than any one state or jurisdiction can anticipate or adequately regulate.
To use the analogy of an erect penis, it has no innate morality in terms of how it ejaculates other than through the complex framework of culture, ethics and morality within which it manifests itself and is allowed to operate. When the context around that engorged blood vessel trucks no prohibition to do whatever it will to get off, then the penis like money has little compunction to act in an ethical, moral or responsible way.