Home | About | Donate

Too Big to Fail, Hillary-Style


The Democratic Party paid a political price for doing what it promised. The bastards.


No, because Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with derivatives or the securitization of mortgages. Agree repeal of G-S was wrong and harmful. But did not create the financial collapse. Read something. Almost anything.


Yes I will. Thank you very much.


They are coming for you this very minute.


Obama has never been part of the DLC, which is why there was a head to head with Clinton in 2008. Politics is just not the seamless theatre you imagine.


I dislike her as much as anyone. But how can someone become POTUS without having licked the oligarchy’s boots?


Time for evening troll control !

The 2008 Obama/Clinton head to head was driven by the Clintons’ and the Party’s preference to nominate Clinton in 2008. In 2008 the DLC was analagous to the building code and the DNC was analagous to the building inspector enforcing the code. Obama didn’t get to select or unselect membership…it never worked that way.

The Clintons and Obama fullfilled the DLC’s mission to the extent that there was no longer a need for it and it was dissolved in 2011. Its archives and records being turned over to the Clinton Foundation…

By 2011 the DLC playbook became dyed in the wool of the Democratic Party, controlling any politician identifying as a Democrat. That is why Sanders’ primary campaign was so tepid, addressing less than a quarter of Clinton’s baggage.

Although Glass-Steagall did not directly impact mortgage securitization or derivatives, it provided a firewall that kept FDIC insured commercial banks from taking risks in those markets and would have prevented Congress from putting US taxpayers on the hook for 20 plus trillion in bank bailouts (more than enough to fund single payer medical insurance for every Murkin for a decade and retire every student’s debt) , and increasing FDIC premiums fivefold that has resulted in US savings account holders from ever seeing anything over 1% again.


You are kind to HC.

Recall the Monica Lewinski incident and the ‘coincidence’/timing of this event with the passing of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Recall how Bill and Monica were surpassing all the news worthy common visual-social interest within the American press when BC signed the FSMA.

You state (in careful consideration of a seemingly concerned HC…leading our national moment of awareness to the housing problem):

"What’s problematic about Hillary’s public and private positions in the economic sphere, at least, isn’t their two-facedness but how of {sic} a piece they are. Yes, she warned the bankers to “cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! [ain’t she telling it like it is for all of us??? Hah!] Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors!” – but that was no demonstration of strength in relation to the big banks. Her comments revealed no real understanding of their precise role in exacerbating a fixable subprime loan calamity and global financial crisis, nor did her finger-wagging mean anything to Wall Street.

Repeat: “…She warned the bankers to ‘cut it out!’”

Pause here and do some personal persona research: Compare: RW with GWB; compare BH with DC; JL with GHWB: use Google pics. Now compare: HC with FMBkkr (700 C.) and JBkkr with TDeL (spkr/U.S.H.R.) then observe how JB was arrested due sexual misconduct…

We are observing the dual brilliance of HC. She is growing support in her lead in concern of male dominance as well as misdirecting a nation from a planned dumping of American debt. I state this was premeditated!

ML is a sham charge against Bill C, taking the public away from the Removal of Glass Steagall via BC’s male actions while in office. HC knew on day one the incident would be setting the economic ‘stage’ as one of the actions to launder or dump American import debt (oil and PRC consumer goods) into world banking.

She knew on day 1! BC flew!

Author of this reply: A pig male who fights for his lost retirement investments due market ‘planned’ failure…is he too zealous?

B Al Gore’s Leer Jet:


Ray, your explanation of this is exactly right.


,and has been since 1963.


Too big is the failure.


The two parties in power stuck us with candidates who are deeply opposed by much of their own voting bases. This fact alone merits considerable thought and discussion.

I’m not sure why liberals decided that Clinton has won. She is deeply opposed by much of the Dem voting base. They don’t consider her the “lesser of the evils,” based on her own record. There is certainly good reason for anxiety. Whatever happens, masses of us will lose, and there really isn’t anything we can do about it. Over the past 20 years, even those who are not on the right wing have been deeply divided, pitted against each other by class and race.


Since the 1990s, the Clinton wing have essentially taken over the Dem Party. Most (all?) the Democrats in Congress are solid Clinton neoiliberals. For the past 20 years, they have consistently worked to impose the right wing/corporate agenda. If elected, I assume we will watch for eight years as the rich do to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor. Of course, we’ve slowly been transitioning into just another third world labor state for years.


Nah, my response is based on understanding Article II of the Constitution. I don’t defend any presidency because as far as I am concerned, they were all pretty much failed if you are holding up an ideal. And if you re-read my post,you will see that I never suggested that legislation is not and/or “ought” not be the responsibility of the president. I pointed out that the legislature originates and writes legislation, according to the Constitution. Yeah, the President claims credit for and gets blamed for legislation, and they certainly bombast about their proposed legislation. But as we have all seen, talk is cheap and when they get in office, suddenly they become mum. Obama certainly did. All blah blah, very little real action to support his so-called liberal ideals.


You are contradicting yourself. How can the repeal of Glass-Steagall be “wrong and harmful” yet innocent of any contribution to the financial collapse. Might try reading something yourself, I’ll help:


James Rickards is a hedge fund manager in New York City and the author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis

The oldest propaganda technique is to repeat a lie emphatically and often until it is taken for the truth. Something like this is going on now with regard to banks and the financial crisis. The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.

In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it’s critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. …



Hillary Clinton is a Republican.


More on the “Clinton Crime Family” Clintons Are Under Multiple FBI Investigations as Agents Are Stymied
“That information was further supported by an in-depth article
last evening in the Wall Street Journal by Devlin Barrett. According to
Barrett, the “probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to
determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred
related to the charity.” Barrett’s article suggests that the Justice
Department, which oversees the FBI, has attempted to circumvent the
investigation. The new revelations lead to the appearance of wrongdoing
on the part of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch for secretly meeting with Bill Clinton
on her plane on the tarmac of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport on the evening of June 28 of this year. Not only was Bill
Clinton’s wife under an FBI investigation at the time over her use of a
private email server in the basement of her New York home over which Top
Secret material was transmitted while she was Secretary of State but
his own charitable foundation was also under investigation, a fact that
was unknown at the time to the public and the media.”

650,000 emails found from Clinton (private server) on Huma’s laptop, the same laptop used for Weiner’s sexting a 15 year old girl. Since the FBI did not have the authority to search the Clinton emails Comey had no choice but to re-open the Clinton investigation.

The Clinton Foundation is and has been under investigation for influence peddling and “pay to play” schemes.