Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 04:44 AM Jan 2016

Bill Clinton undercuts Hillary's CFMA attack.

Last edited Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Asked if the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was responsible for the financial crisis, Bill said:

"No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the 2008 crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122282635048992995

Here's what he said when it was passed.



So which is it Hillary? Is Bill lying to protect his legacy or are you lying to become President? Or it is all just nonsense because of the circumstances?

Seems like those two should sit down and decide which story they're going to go with.

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
3. No
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 04:58 AM
Jan 2016

But to have her own husband/ex-President say her attacks are false is telling.

If Sanders wife said he was completely wrong about Hillary people would note it. You would probably note it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
5. Really! But truths are OK for some, and not so much for others...!
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:12 AM
Jan 2016

If we dared associate Ms. O'Meara Driscoll Sanders' fiscal acumen (or lack thereof) with that of her husband, there would be HOWLS of outrage!! (Point finger, dramatically!) How DARE you!!!





But it's all OK if you support a candidate not named Clinton.

The bias is rather astounding.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
9. If she
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:28 AM
Jan 2016

Had worked to push the Act through Congress and the Senate and then signed it into law - as President of the United States - then people would be very interested in her position.

Actually, let's be honest.

If she said anything negative about her husband, every Hillary supporter would immediately jump on it. Heck Chelsea would probably already be lying about it.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
11. Yeah, let's BE honest.
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 06:06 AM
Jan 2016

The woman is a fiscal train wreck--her lousy stewardship of that sad little struggling college in VT is Exhibit A. And she's the principal campaign manager for her husband's campaign, AND she has served as his chief of staff and principal advisor during his quarter-century Congressional career. AND she's steered campaign money to her kids as well as herself when her husband was running for the Senate.

But hey, mention that, and let the whining begin....IOKIYBS, I guess!

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
10. The bias is indeed staggering.
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:49 AM
Jan 2016

Anytime HRC does anything remotely political there is absolute OUTRAGE. Conspiracy theories around every corner. Nefarious motives 24/7. It's shameful.

Sounds more like Freeperville Or Free Republic around here.

 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
6. Well, in the last debate, Hillary coyly suggested Bill
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:13 AM
Jan 2016

might play a large role in her administration.

I sure would like her to emphasize her strong dislike of the TPP. We sure know where Bernie stands on it.

Her repeated refusal to restore Glass-Steagall is very troubling. (My wife and I saw The Big Short on Sunday and the danger of unnecessary risky banking practices continues apace.)

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)
7. Yes. HRC is running for President. I think Bill Clinton explaining the impact
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:13 AM
Jan 2016

of a policy he signed into law on the 2008 recession is great. I don't know the ins and outs of the policy but he did such a great job of explaining it, I want to know more.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
8. You can read his praise for it here
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 05:25 AM
Jan 2016
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=56922

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.
Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act makes the most important legislative changes to the structure of the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. Financial services firms will be authorized to conduct a wide range of financial activities, allowing them freedom to innovate in the new economy. The Act repeals provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since the Great Depression, have restricted affiliations between banks and securities firms. It also amends the Bank Holding Company Act to remove restrictions on affiliations between banks and insurance companies. It grants banks significant new authority to conduct most newly authorized activities through financial subsidiaries.

...

 

Akamai

(1,779 posts)
15. Thanks for posting this! I had never read BC's justification for
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 07:25 AM
Jan 2016

this horrendous piece of legislation before. That last paragraph could fit very nicely in the movie, The Big Short.

That bill led pretty directly to the 2007 meltdown.

Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
12. Gramm-Leach-Bliley (repeal of Glass-Steagall) and CFMA were passed separately.
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 06:17 AM
Jan 2016

Bill Clinton is talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley in the OP.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
19. Passing of both bills probably lead to the financial crisis in 2008.
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 09:19 AM
Jan 2016

Glass Stegall would not have prevented the crisis and CFMA fed the crisis.

paleotn

(17,691 posts)
16. Bill is protecting his legacy
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 07:26 AM
Jan 2016

... but I don't think he's lying, necessarily. I think things didn't quite turn out as he had hoped. That's what happens many times when you take the advice of liars and thieves.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
17. Both Clintons are wrong. The CFMA was highly instrumental in near economic collapse
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jan 2016

of several nations in 2008. Gramm, Leach, Blilely, aka repeal of Glass Steagall, also played a role. Both were lobbied for by the Clinton White House so that Clinton could later claim a so-called "veto proof majority." Bill refuses to take responsibility, which usually works for him.

Sanders voted against Gramm, Leach Bliley. When he voted for the CFMA in the House, the language that caused the problems in the economy was not in the bill. That language was added later, in a Senate compromise. Ultimate, the bill was wrapped into several appropriations bills, totaling 11,000 pages and rammed through.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778045

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=9158



Democratic members of Congress later described a period in late September through early October during which they were excluded from negotiations over reconciling the three committee versions of H.R. 4541, followed by involvement in reaching an acceptable compromise that left some Republicans unhappy with the final version of the bill and some Democrats upset over the "process", particularly the involvement of Sen. Gramm and House Republican leadership in the negotiations.[58] Despite indications no agreement would be reached, on October 19, 2000, the White House announced its "strong support" for the version of H.R. 4541 scheduled to reach the House Floor that day.[59] The House approved H.R. 4541 in a 377-4 vote.[60]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 (The entire wiki is instructive.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/how-congress-rushed-a-bil_b_181926.html (2009 article)
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bill Clinton undercuts Hi...