The real issue is that the whole financial system has been rigged and distorted, which allows things like ":shadow banking" to occur in the first place.

We have a monopolistic system dominated by too few large financial institutions dominated by too few people. And too many politicians -- like the Clintons -- who are ion bed with them.

That's the problem.

the problem. Even when someone like Krugman tells you, you still recite the same old bull shit.

I am glad that Hillary will be President and not Bernie.

Hillary does her homework and studies the problem.

Bernie recites his 40 year old talking points.

A suggestion. Look up William Greider, the reporter mentioned in the OP. Look back at his articles from the 80's until now.

You might not change your mind totally, but it might open your mind slightly to the fact that the Democrats were not passive ovbservers of the problems that the GOP gets blamed for. They were too often accomplices.

Now it is Bill Clinton's turn

It does have to do with Sanders.

Sanders' unofficial slogan is: put blame where it belongs.

Clinton's unofficial slogan, on the other hand, is: let's hear where the polls say I should put the blame, and if the focus groups tells me it is me, I must triangulate that into some accusation of racism or sexism. Or socialism. Or whatever Correct the Record can spin into a carefully bought and paid for new poll that suggests my support is up. Because I am INEVITABLE, dammit!

"Sanders is rubber and Hillary is glue?"

Like the fact that two years after Clinton last said I shouldn't have equal rights, she still hasn't been able to give a credical account of her change of mind, other than some focus group or polls.

Like the fact that she didn't come out against TPP until it was dead in the water anyway.

Like the fact that she steadfastly refuses to do the same with TIPP, which is still showing signs of (ugly) life.

Like the fact she invoked Republican talking points when definding her ties with Wall Street, which are another issue we are facing in this day and age.

Need I go on?

or gay rights

or campaign financing reform

or reform of higher education

or prison industry reform

or...

Just kidding of course.

when most millennials and Gen xers have a lot of reason to lose sleep, Granted, so do many of the Boomers, but those want want Hillary to never answer for her own stated views try to make sure no one wakes up. Note I did not say "Hillary supporters" because people who really supported Hillary would say "hey Hillary, can you clean this mess up before we hit the election." The sort of cheerleaders we have at DU are the sort that would give an alcoholic a fifth of scotch.

is ronald reagon. they don't know what it means to be old school dem when you didn't take shit from a republican for any reason. Too sad.

The wounds Ronnie Ray Gun cut into the mind and soul of this nation will continue to bleed and fester for centuries to come.

Cheers!

If I can run with Cutty Sark, it is stuff that pretends to represent tradition and excellence, but could not hold a candle to a Glenlivet or any decent single malt scotch. Many of Hillary's cheerleaders are the sort that would drink a pretentious "scotch" that people knew was BS.

Again, I do not say "supporters" There may be people who genuinely, after thought, plan to support Hillary, but there are many others who refuses any critique of stuff she has outright said. The real Cutty Sark ship in Scotland, is no longer seaworthy, because some genius had the brilliant idea to put the ship on a scaffold and cut a hole in her bottom to accommodate and exit to the museum below. Hillary's campaign is full of such brilliant ideas, and if it is ever to go into battle with republican navies, it needs to plug those holes, even though some of her donors actually think they can put the ship to sea without plugging them.

So very true -

They are about to set sail with Swiss cheese for a hull - I hope they can bail water as well as they carry it.

Jeez, now I need a drink.

Come November I think half this place will be plastered.

I hope I am not banned and just observing from the bleachers. I might be though, I have to respect the rules and I can not support HRC for president. Sorry, I'm too old for that shit.

I had a dram or two of Ardbeg lying around, so I decided since we were talking Scotch......

Cheers.

Bill could've worn the wrong colored tie on a Tuesday in 96 & it would've been Hillary's fault & somehow been the direct cause of some political decision that put the US on a downward spiral that only Sanders can fix.

It's Bill Clintons fault. I guess it's a step up from using Conyers to attack democrats.

So he feels no constraint when it comes to attacking Democrats.

And she formulated a wonderfully detailed enemies list of dem pols who supported him over her.

That' funny.

then no, Hillary is also not a Democrat.

The Revolution. Lots of funny false equivalencies in those archives!

Grow up, this is still a Democratic site. Save the snarky monikers for the Republicans. Unlike the come to the party at the last minute so that he can run for president, Hillary has been a Democrat since the 60s.

is a winning strategy. With thoughts like that there really isn't a discussion to be had.

The economy has become one monopolistic empire domionated by a handful of massive and morally awful corporations.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and the DNC and the Deregulation, and Privatization and the "Era of Big Government is Over" and all the otehr crap they foisted on an unsuspecting public.

There are whole swaths of people taking blame from republicans and placing it on democrats. Sorry, you can't damage his popularity. He earned it. The job growth and economic expansion under Clinton really bothers some people.

Had Clinton presided over a truly robust and healthy period of sustainable economic growth, the decade that followed would not have been so awful, and the underlying problems we now face would not be so entrenched.

Did the deregulated financial system have nothing to do with the collapse of 2008? Has the consolidation of so many industruies into monopolistic empires been a good thing? Is it healthy for the national discourse that Clinton passed a law that removed reatrsints ion media ownership? How many of those good new jobs have since been exported overseas?

I'm so glad you want to just ignore and laugh off the aftermath and concentrate on the artificial and ultimately destructive buzz of the 1990's.

I was paying attention during the 90's, and had the same suspicions and objections that Sanders, Wellstone and others on the "left" (as well as non ideological observers did) had back then when the stage was being set.

Projected out the logical outcome was of all that stuff, and it's happened sure as hell. That's not a "leftist" complaint. It's the same stuff that Hillary supposedly cites as problems....But she wants to ignore the root causes.

You can continue to bask in the "We will never have another recession again, and the economy will grow forever" illusions of the 90's if you want.

"I'm so glad you want to"

"You can continue to"

Love me some Big Dog.

That is why Bernie came to Hillary's rescue over the E-Mails during the first debate,
and has run a clean, positive campaign so far.

OTOH: Hillary, Wall Street, Dog Whistles, and DWS......

Ok, got it! Didn't realize they were the same person, though, and also didn't realize nothing changes over 20 years time. Wow! I must still be skinny and have no grey hair at all!

for this country that Congress torpedoed. Probably because her last name was Clinton and that's how they rolled in those days. Still do.

Then as now, she was trying to placate the big insurance, big pharma, big healthcare corps lobbies with a plan you needed to be a nuclear physicist to understand.

was paying attention knows she was involved in much of what he did.

However, that does not really matter - she has told us that she will not reinstate Glass-Steagall. That is what matters.

Oh yes, the 'rag'....How rich!...How could I have forgotten that little gem?....one of the dumbest replies I've heard in a while.

If Hillary is going to claim 8 years in the White House as co-president as part of her experience, then whatever applies to him, applies to her. She was the Best Republican President's* First Lady, or co-president, or however she styles herself.

http://www.rodneyohebsion.com/hillary-rodham-clinton.htm

Thanks for posting it here.

Or at least: the donkey-in-name-only in the room.

I'd rather be an ass.

how enlightened the left is these days. We let those little women have a place in the world as long as we remember that they are only extensions of their men, who do the actual thinking for them.

Being FLOTUS? Or does her career begin as the junior senator form NY?

Eve made Adam sin just as Bill Clinton and Barak Obama's errors were all her fault for leading them astray. As for Bill Clinton, he managed to win the presidency after crushing losses by Carter, Mondale and Dukakis by triangulating. But I suppose some of the purists would rather let rabid conservatives run the country than a moderate democrat.

or the "co-presidency"?

I didn't.

..."the theft of the world's economy never has been truly litigated within the court of American politics" is that it was a bi-partisan "operation" carefully planned to happen during the change over of administrations...leading to Plausible Deniability and "shared blame" between the Parties.

[font size=3]Paulson & Co-Conspirators after the successful extortion of nearly a TRILLION Dollars from the American People.

Now THIS is bi-partisanship.
Get used to it!!!
Hahahahahahaha![/font]

The main players rushed in front of the cameras, patting themselves on the back for their "courage"
and "Saving the Economy".

Whether they "saved the economy is arguable",
it is unquestionable that they saved the Quarterly Profits of their OWN economy, investment friends in the 1%,
and the "jobs" of their friends on the executive staffs of the Wall Street Banks.

Like the illegal Iraq War, the War Crimes will never be litigated (in THIS country) because too many leadership Democrats like Hillary and John Kerry co-signed the WAR for Bush and the Republicans.

legislatures have final say

Some don't want us to look too closely at a certain candidate.

All Americans, regardless of party, have a right to examine the candidates.

I love the only nay vote. Reason?...."Inappropriate"

That's it. That's about the lamest reason to hide an OP I've ever seen.

NOT reinstate Glass-Steagall.

Hillary was not president. Bill was president 13 years ago. And she bears no resemblance in the slightest to Trump, the other figure Bernanas keep trying to conflate with Clinton.

And its major donors are located on Wall Street.

Doping good work all over the world . Please don't confuse it with the "charitable non profits" that the right wing forms to hide their funding. Unless you want to support the right wing in their endless and unsubstantiated attacks on Clinton. I know the amount of good the Clintons have done is hard for you to imagine, but that's what liberals do.

"Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model."

And they quote the New York times, "The foundation, in fact, went beyond normal philanthropic bounds for transparency six years ago in instituting voluntary disclosure of donors within broad dollar ranges on its website."

And the Washington Post, "On February 18, 2015, The Washington Post reported that, "the foundation has won accolades from philanthropy experts and has drawn bipartisan support..."

And they link to this FactCheck piece, "Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.

Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

Are you gratified to know that you and Carly Fiorina agree, senz?

Jeez you're dumb. Check your subject line

I like Bernie. some of his supporters, with their vitriol and snark, not so much.

Embarrassing denial.

"Bernistas" refers to Bernie's supporters. I assumed you'd know that. I like Bernie. I have trouble with supporters who don't do the man justice.

It's a faded, distant memory for most voters. Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton, nor is she running in the same environment Bill ran in. It's not the same world any more. Bill Clinton, aside from his continuing popularity for personal reasons, is not really a factor in the 2016 election for most voters.

Hillary has an answer about Glass-Steagall. She wants a more comprehensive solution that is created for today's realities, not those in place when Glass-Steagall was enacted. You can look it up on her website, where she explains it in more or less detail.

Continuing to try to draw Bill Clinton into this election is a waste of time.

...and I'm SURE she will get right on that just as soon as she is elected,
just like Obama renegotiated NAFTA, made EFCA the Law of the Land, and got us a Public Option during the 1st hundred days.
JUST like that.


This is just more avoidance of the issue of allowing Investment Banks to gamble with our savings, and if they lose...."whoopsie, give us some more"

Campaign DoubleSpeak..."I can't support this legislation because it isn't Tough Enough on Wall Street". LOL
Does ANYBODY here really believe THAT campaign fodder and ambiguity?
It is just a politician's way of saying, "I ain't gonna do shit",
and she won't.
She WILL NOT bite the Wall Street hand that makes her RICH.

I'll be eager to hear what you have to say after the inauguration. Will it be pretty much the same as you're saying now? I won't be surprised if it is.

The same is true of Bernie. Here is a little cheat sheet for you:

FDR Economic Bill of Rights

What about their cabinet and the appointed positions and the insane deregulation of Wallstreet that occured during their watch.

EVERYONE knew that Hillary was highly involved and pretty much a co-president with Bill Clinton. Don't play naive.

This isn't 20 years ago. It's today.

We'll see how well that plays out.

That's news to me. Any other behavior that the former President engaged in that Secretary Clinton needs to "face facts" on?

Buy one, get the other free.

I bought once. I didn't like either one.

Wonderful Interview with Stiglitz from Frontline. Advisable reading to really get into what was going on economically in the Clinton White House where Stiglitz served.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/stiglitz.html

behavior of Wall Street bankers. But what it would have done was make sure they were gambling with their own money and not ours.

If Glass-Steagall had not been repealed most people would have been safe in deposit banks that used the money of local secured lending only.

It would have been people who moved the safe money into investment banks that would have lost. And they would have been able to determine exactly how much of their money they wanted to take out of the deposit bank and put into the investment bank.

As it stands now our money is still setting in those investment casinos and is not safe or secure.

The problem today is that the 6 banks that hold most of our money today are not stable and if one goes down the rest will go with them. And once again it will be bailout time because ALL of our money is in those banks and we all fall. Glass-Steagall would at least take our deposited money out of those banks and put it in local banks that are protected by FDIC. That was the protection Glass-Steagall gave us - the investment banks did not have our money to play with and ours was safe. FDR was protecting us from exactly what happened in 1929 when banks were unregulated and through reckless investing failed.

it was passed, eighty years ago. An eighty year old solution to a modern problem is silly to say the least.

That kind of "modernization" was just the financial industry saying "Please stop regulating us. Let us do whatever the hell we want."

investment banks - we have no say in if we want to take investment gambles or not. The mind they have taken our of banking is our minds. Before Glass-Steagall was repealed we had a choice.

own hands - small local banks - so that we could invest it in our own communities. Glass-Steagall did not limit investment banks from risky gambles. What it did was separate the bank that we deposit our money in from the investment banks.

Wouldn't you want your own money in your own hands? I would.

the hedge fund that collapsed under Clinton was not a commercial bank. The derivatives that failed were removed from regulation by the Commodity futures modernization act of 2000.
The savings and loan crisis happened before Glass-Steagall was repealed and involved the very type of banks that you seem to think are perfectly safe.
Obviously, if I want my own money in my hands, banks of any kind are not an option.

2000 was also a big mistake. The Savings and Loan companies were investment banks not commercial banks. Yes they took deposits but everyone knew they were an investment banks - what they did not know was that they were not only risky investors but they were crooks.

I am 74 years old I will trust Glass-Steagall any day rather than the banks of today. 6 monopolies that are no more safe than a casino.

better ways to regulate financial institutions than to revive old laws that don't address new problems.
We have only three auto manufacturers left in the USA. No one is claiming they have a monopoly.
Six large "banks" is certainly not a monopoly, either.

Get over it

and now y'all want to deny it. How else can she possibly claim her 8 years in the White House as experience to be president? She wasn't baking cookies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Role_as_First_Lady

Hillary had the power of the First Lady, not President.

Spin it however you need to. Your argument is no more than a grasp at a lifeline for a drowning sanders campaign.
Why can't bernie run on bernies record? Rather his failing campaign is made of continuously slandering his DEM opponent & political statements with no follow through on "how".
The backbone of his oneliner statements is often missing completely.
He will more likely avoid a controversial question than tell the truth. He is a weak candidate.
Thanks
My Opinion.

Thank you Cali for bringing the Great financial success that was the Clinton Presidency!

The labor market was strong


Economic growth was strong


Poverty shrunk, but extreme poverty grew due to the welfare reform (agreed that is a huge downside from the presidency)



Inflation was stabilized.


There is truth to the statement that income inequality did skyrocket, but at the same time median waged DID grow. At the end of the day does it really matter just how much the 1% has or does it matter more what the poor and middle class have? Personally, I care much more about the latter and not at all of the former.



What did Senator Sanders accomplish during those years? hmmmm. Hell only 3 bills that he ever sponsored or co-sponsored ever became a law, and none of them were of any particular significance.

Edited to cite my source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts

I know you didn't write it.

I immediately felt some kind of way with this.

I guess I should be mad about that ... or something.