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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: You Decide If MILLIONS "Earned" By Bill Clinton in Speaking Fees During Hillary's Tenure [View all]JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)30. 100% Pure Anadulturated Bullshit.
Now its true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.
Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?
Riegle-Neal hasnt got a tenth of the press that the CMFA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley have, but it was a milestone in the creation of Too Big to Fail, allowing banks to cross state lines, effectively gutting state regulation of banking. The Christian Science Monitor that year quoted a Wall Street analyst saying that, It also didnt hurt that NationsBank president Hugh McColl has a working relationship with President Clinton or that the comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, was a successful lawyer at Covington & Burling and NationsBank had been a major client. Hugh McColl gave us Bank of America.
From across the pond, The Independent wrote in a piece that was prescient in more ways than one:
Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.
Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.
In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, This is a day we can celebrate as an American day and that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live and today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority and This is a very good day for the United States.
Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?
Riegle-Neal hasnt got a tenth of the press that the CMFA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley have, but it was a milestone in the creation of Too Big to Fail, allowing banks to cross state lines, effectively gutting state regulation of banking. The Christian Science Monitor that year quoted a Wall Street analyst saying that, It also didnt hurt that NationsBank president Hugh McColl has a working relationship with President Clinton or that the comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, was a successful lawyer at Covington & Burling and NationsBank had been a major client. Hugh McColl gave us Bank of America.
From across the pond, The Independent wrote in a piece that was prescient in more ways than one:
In effect, Congress has said let the merger mania begin. There is virtual consensus that the legislation will allow both the big US banks and their foreign rivals in America - British banks among them - to grow much bigger.
Nor was that the only thing the banks got that year. The American Banking Association wrote about Riegle-Neal, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, and the Community Banking Development Act that the 103rd will be remembered as the first Congress in recent memory to pass clean pro-banking legislation.
Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.
Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.
In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, This is a day we can celebrate as an American day and that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live and today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority and This is a very good day for the United States.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php
In June, I attended a dinner for Bill Clinton, which was educational. Clinton spoke passionately about his foundation, about African wildlife, inequality, childhood obesity, and much else with enormous factual command, emotion, and rhetorical power. But he and I also spoke privately. I asked him about the financial crisis. He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while.
For example, Mr. Clinton sorrowfully lamented his inability to stop the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of private (OTC) derivatives trading, and thereby greatly worsened the crisis. Mr. Clinton said that he and Larry Summers had argued with Alan Greenspan, but couldn't budge him, and then Congress passed the law by a veto-proof supermajority, tying his hands. Well, actually, the reason that the law passed by that overwhelming margin was because of the Clinton Administration's strong advocacy, including Congressional testimony by Larry Summers and harsh public and private attacks on advocates of regulation by Summers and Robert Rubin.
For example, Mr. Clinton sorrowfully lamented his inability to stop the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of private (OTC) derivatives trading, and thereby greatly worsened the crisis. Mr. Clinton said that he and Larry Summers had argued with Alan Greenspan, but couldn't budge him, and then Congress passed the law by a veto-proof supermajority, tying his hands. Well, actually, the reason that the law passed by that overwhelming margin was because of the Clinton Administration's strong advocacy, including Congressional testimony by Larry Summers and harsh public and private attacks on advocates of regulation by Summers and Robert Rubin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/hillary-clinton-documentary_b_4014792.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You Decide If MILLIONS "Earned" By Bill Clinton in Speaking Fees During Hillary's Tenure [View all]
CorporatistNation
Jan 2016
OP
Yes he earned the money he received for his speaking. You could say the same about
Thinkingabout
Jan 2016
#4
Either Bill should have collected fees for speaking OR Hillary should have run for president and
JDPriestly
Jan 2016
#47
Waiting to see the impropriety proof. Wjat would be different in the case
Thinkingabout
Jan 2016
#49
The comparison is utterly weak. I've already heard about the $200,000 she is said to have
JDPriestly
Jan 2016
#53
Do you seriously think the Republicans will need to prove anything about Hillary?
JDPriestly
Jan 2016
#71
Shocking news: People want to pay an ex president who presided over the most successful economy
Amimnoch
Jan 2016
#28
And the Clinton's also are much more in demand than the George W Bush family.
Thinkingabout
Jan 2016
#32
I Saw "The Big Short" Last Night.. I Highly Recommend That Prior to Casting Your Vote in The Primary
CorporatistNation
Jan 2016
#5
Jon L., Thank You... As Honest And Thoughtful People Clearly Understand Is The Clear Fact That
CorporatistNation
Jan 2016
#35
Clearly it did. What is BULLSHIT is claiming that Clinton didn't also support it.
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#76
You didn't qualify your dismissal and if Clinton didn't support it at all it passes...
uponit7771
Jan 2016
#78
Believe what you want. If a President opposes a bill, more nay votes tend to appear.
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#79
I don't laud what I want above the facts, I'll leave that up to conservatives. The facts are the ...
uponit7771
Jan 2016
#86
Just Da Facts Joe... Just da Facts.. And Da Facts Can Be Painful When Ya Have To Look At Them!
CorporatistNation
Jan 2016
#18
When the quid is that large, a quo is implied. The rules of the game. Dumbfucks.
Elmer S. E. Dump
Jan 2016
#38
Are you trying to convey a message? Because your thought, doesn't seem to go anywhere.
jkbRN
Jan 2016
#14
I remember the shit-fit we all had about Reagan going to Japan and getting $3 million for speaking..
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#22
Yeah, all the other progressive works the Clintons have done so far mean nothing at all. :rolleye:
uponit7771
Jan 2016
#77
actually, I DON'T think actors or athletes should make millions either. I think that is
Karma13612
Jan 2016
#68
"Teh Clinton's are teh evil" is some really rough and ragged sand, better to avoid even walking
uponit7771
Jan 2016
#75