The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hillary Pulls Off the Mask
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I’ve been writing for a long time about how the Cult of Diversity is one of the best things ever to happen to billionaires (besides having billions, of course). Now, Hillary has taken up my argument and is using it in her speeches, just from the billionaires’ point of view. From the New York Times on 2/13/16:

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

At each question, the crowd called back with a resounding no.

 
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Don’t leave us hanging: did she look like more like a schnauzer or more like a pug?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I'm going to report you to the ASPCA for that remark.
    , @donut
    Yeah , Pugs have the best disposition of any dog unlike that desiccated carpet muncher .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that bring John Lennon back? Would it cure asthma? Would it cure AIDS? Etc.

    Little kids formulate more intelligent arguments than this when they’re trying to get out of being punished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. She’s right. Government and big business can help protect the rights of people of color

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @a Newsreader
    Don't leave us hanging: did she look like more like a schnauzer or more like a pug?

    I’m going to report you to the ASPCA for that remark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Wow.

    So, Hillary issues a “Checkers Speech” in a cynical attempt to cover up diversity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Are Democrats really this stupid? She used an obvious rhetorical ploy to get her audience to support big banks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    Are Democrats really this stupid?
     
    Yes. And now it is becoming clearer why the oligarchs want to import as many of these types of voters into the prized nations of the West as possible. With a such a constituency it will just take a couple of Judas goats like Hillary to give the oligarchs carte blanche.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. To be fair to Hillary, breaking up big banks won’t solve whatever it is you consider real problems either.

    Nor will it really inconvenience billionaires.

    Read More
    • Agree: gruff, snorlax
    • Replies: @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.
    , @NOTA
    The only argument for breaking up big banks I've seen is that any bank so big it can't be allowed to fail should be broken up into smaller banks that can be allowed to fail. An alternative is to regulate big banks like public monopolies--the city water company is too big and important to fail, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. The game is as old as time. Divide and conquer.

    It works on even the people that see it. Steve is an intellectual so he hates businessman. He wants a strong white culture but where is any power supposed to come from if a group gives up trying to win? Almost every win at some point derives from strong businessmen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jean Cocteausten
    The stated reason your company sends you to diversity training: to promote harmony.

    The actual reason your company send you to diversity training: to create tension and suspicion
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. The Cult of Diversity is good for business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. That’s unreal. Of course it could really be used as a retort for any policy under deliberation. For example, would raising the tax rates end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Davosbane
    Are Democrats really this stupid? She used an obvious rhetorical ploy to get her audience to support big banks.

    Are Democrats really this stupid?

    Yes. And now it is becoming clearer why the oligarchs want to import as many of these types of voters into the prized nations of the West as possible. With a such a constituency it will just take a couple of Judas goats like Hillary to give the oligarchs carte blanche.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Agreed.

    But I would also include all the GOP candidates with the exception of Trump that are as much a Judas goat as Hillary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Even in her death throes, the Lady Macbeth of Chappaqua cannot seem to make a cogent argument for why she should be president – if Bill stops sinning, will I be elected president?

    And the answer rode to her ears on a thundering wave, a resounding NO!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Liberal Dilbert guy blog is funny with his rejection of Hillary because she’s biased against men. As if that’s a new wrinkle for the Donks.

    White, straight men who have been voting Democrat anytime after the 1990′s are questionable. After 2000′s they are flat out cucks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Or, they're mega-rich alpha males who are cucking the rest of us
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Anonymous
    Liberal Dilbert guy blog is funny with his rejection of Hillary because she's biased against men. As if that's a new wrinkle for the Donks.

    White, straight men who have been voting Democrat anytime after the 1990's are questionable. After 2000's they are flat out cucks.

    Or, they’re mega-rich alpha males who are cucking the rest of us

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. In this country, NAMs have always been the rich white man’s best allies. Wittingly or not.

    Fight the power! [by helping Wall Street] Fight the power! [by voting for a rich old white woman with a penchant for foreign wars] Fight the power! [by supporting the life partner/enabler of a markedly disingenuous, sleazy, chase the secretary 'round the desk kind of creep] Fight the power! [by choosing a candidate who gets advice from Henry Kissinger and is unapologetic about it]

    The sleaziest 1920′s Mississippi sheriff got nothing on black quasi-preachers, aged black women, gay bourgeois and Boomer cat ladies when it comes to political cynicism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Documents from the 90s indicate that Hillary was really uncomfortable with the whole gay rights thing. Is this her true self? Or is she just good at knowing which way the winds are blowing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hubbub
    Up her pants suit, of course.
    , @AndrewR
    I'm not at all convinced that Hillary values anything that doesn't help to increase her own power and wealth. She'd probably let you set her own daughter on fire in exchange for enough votes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. “Hillary Pulls Off the Mask”

    Someone translated her campaign book and it turned out to mean “To Serve Man”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @iSteveFan

    Are Democrats really this stupid?
     
    Yes. And now it is becoming clearer why the oligarchs want to import as many of these types of voters into the prized nations of the West as possible. With a such a constituency it will just take a couple of Judas goats like Hillary to give the oligarchs carte blanche.

    Agreed.

    But I would also include all the GOP candidates with the exception of Trump that are as much a Judas goat as Hillary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    Ya, the GOP are the biggest Judas goats when it comes to the white voters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. “If you elect me,” screeched Hillary, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

    No, because no one will ever admit that those battles are already won.

    Read More
    • Agree: Thea
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @inertial
    To be fair to Hillary, breaking up big banks won't solve whatever it is you consider real problems either.

    Nor will it really inconvenience billionaires.

    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can’t even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980′s and 90′s? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 “little banks” failed and caused the recession of late 80′s and early 90′s (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The deregulation of S&Ls in 1980, by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31, 1980, gave them many of the capabilities of banks without the same regulations as banks, without explicit FDIC oversight.
     
    -the wikipedia article you cite

    Yeah clearly the S&L crisis shows that it's impossible to regulate small banks. Nothing as simple and obvious as it being impossible to regulate banks that aren't actually being subject to any regulations.

    , @iSteveFan
    No one is saying that the big banks have to be broken up into so many tiny banks that there would be too many banks to monitor. What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared 'too big to fail' be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer 'too big to fail', so that when one of these banks is in jeopardy, the taxpayers don't have to bail it out.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Oh, boy! What have we here? A Goldman-Sachs troll? Ha, ha! That's a first.


    Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980′s and 90′s? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control ...
     
    Yeah, I remember it well. I remember that those 3,234 institutions were liquidated by the Resolution Trust Corporation without any noticeable effect on the rest of the economy.

    Care to try gain, Mr. Blankfein? (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205)
    , @Andrew
    epebble:

    So you don't think there was any causality between deregulating the banks and S&L's and the changes to depreciation schedules and allowable deductions in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, and the shortly subsequent real estate crisis and banking debacle?
    , @Wilkey
    "If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can’t even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes."

    Wow - that's insanely dense. 3,000 banks is too many, and yet somehow the IRS doesn't seem to have a problem finding me (among 320 million other people) when I underpay my taxes by $12.

    3,000 banks sounds like a lot. The government has several million civilian employees to accomplish the task. I'm sure they're up to it. Besides that, it doesn't really matter if you divide a particular industry 50 ways or 5,000 ways. The industry will still be roughly as large and contain roughly as many employees. When it comes to regulating an industry, it's the total size and scope of the industry that matters, not the number of unique institutions.
    , @MarkinLA
    Yeah, it happened because Reagan cut funding for the regulators of the thrifts to the point of it being non-existent and the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which allowed the problems of the thrift industry to linger on and bleed into the commercial banking industry which formerly had a monopoly on commercial lending. Now the banks and thrifts were in a race to the bottom as far as banking standards went (sound familiar). Prior to this act in order to get financing for an new office building, for example, a bank would require 20-30% equity by the principal and signed lease agreements. By the time this race was in full swing banks were lending 100% on spec. Developers were building ever more ridiculous monuments to their egos with expensive accouterments that ballooned the costs of these buildings to the point that they would ever make economic sense


    1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year.


    Major provisions include: elimination of deposit interest rate ceilings; elimination of the previous statutory limit on loan to value ratio; and expansion of the asset powers of federal S&Ls by permitting up to 40% of assets in commercial mortgages, up to 30% of assets in consumer loans, up to 10% of assets in commercial loans, and up to 10% of assets in commercial leases.

    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/sandl/

    , @MarkinLA
    Before thrifts were allowed to "grow their way out of their problems" with "reforms" during the Carter and especially the Reagan administrations, regulation was as simple as pie or maybe you forgot all those jokes about bankers hours.

    Back then all a thrift could do was make residential real estate loans which were single family houses and housing blocks with under 4 units. That is why you see so many 4 blocks in the older parts of a city. You tend to see them as the duplex on the bottom floor and the duplexes on the top or the 4 townhouse unit like the Monopoly game apartments.

    The thrifts took in deposits and made safe well documented home loans. They paid out more in interest than banks and charged less for home loans. That was their niche and the commercial banks got the rest.

    As long as interest rates stayed constant and low everything was fine. They started offering assumable mortgages just before interest rates went haywire and money market funds started sucking away their deposits.

    Unless the bank is involved in criminal activity, how difficult is it to determine if the bank is solvent when you only have a few main variables in a linear equation? You have your depositors accounts and the interest rate. You have the home loans and the interest rate. You have your costs and the amount of money you have set aside for loan losses. You have the number of problem loans and a reasonable determination of what the default rate will be and the percentage of the loan recoverable in foreclosure. There isn't much more than that.

    The problem was that the House of Representatives biggest source of campaign cash was S&Ls which were usually smallish 1-3 branch office operations. Carter was supposedly given a report that it would cost 15 billion to wind down all the bad thrifts and roll the whole industry up. The FSLIC would have had more money for that operation but the deposit insurance rate had been reduced at the behest of the industry many years before. The roll-up wasn't popular with the thrift owners, many who would be wiped out if they were insolvent beyond all reasonable help.

    As is usual they turn to the "experts" from the industry who deduce that the way out is to allow thrifts to branch out and make new loans so that the old assumable mortgages would be a much smaller percentage of their whole portfolio. When Carter's deregulation didn't fix the problem they do what they always do and dig the hole deeper. This also makes regulation a lot tougher since the mix of loans is more complex. Now add in a gutted regulatory agency, the ability to accept deposits from anywhere in the country, and sleazy developers buying thrifts so they can have their own private piggy bank and you get the mess it became.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Hepp
    Documents from the 90s indicate that Hillary was really uncomfortable with the whole gay rights thing. Is this her true self? Or is she just good at knowing which way the winds are blowing?

    Up her pants suit, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Leftist conservative [AKA "GOD ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ"] says:

    I’ve been writing for a long time about how the Cult of Diversity is one of the best things ever to happen to billionaires

    what did you write about this, specifically?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "what did you write about this, specifically?"
    You're God. You should know these things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    The deregulation of S&Ls in 1980, by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31, 1980, gave them many of the capabilities of banks without the same regulations as banks, without explicit FDIC oversight.

    -the wikipedia article you cite

    Yeah clearly the S&L crisis shows that it’s impossible to regulate small banks. Nothing as simple and obvious as it being impossible to regulate banks that aren’t actually being subject to any regulations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. The avatar of the Yoni proclaiming the creed of the Totem Pole.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    No one is saying that the big banks have to be broken up into so many tiny banks that there would be too many banks to monitor. What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared ‘too big to fail’ be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer ‘too big to fail’, so that when one of these banks is in jeopardy, the taxpayers don’t have to bail it out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared ‘too big to fail’ be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer ‘too big to fail’,..........."

    The alternative is to just let the bank fail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @rod1963
    Agreed.

    But I would also include all the GOP candidates with the exception of Trump that are as much a Judas goat as Hillary.

    Ya, the GOP are the biggest Judas goats when it comes to the white voters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Hillary Pulls Off the Mask

    The eugenics club at Wellesley made her pull off more than that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ganderson
    Euuuu... Or as they say where you live, ish...
    , @Big Bill
    "Made her" take her clothes off?

    If the late 20th Century taught me anything, it's that girls will take off all their clothes, outside, in public, for photos (or just casual delectation), for damn near anything: art, civil rights, slut walks, peace rallies, rock concerts, anything.

    All they need is some authority figure to tell them it's OK, and they'll get nekkid as a jaybird.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. antiracism is a very young religion. The dogmas are still crude. Maybe in some decades the coming Jesuits of Antiracism my find at least more complex and interesting interpretations of their faith

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Yes but let’s not upset Hilary’s campaign quite yet, ideal opponent for Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Basically, high end bank robbers chanting “Attica!” to justify their crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Josh
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

    The Ruskies underwood this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Pantsuit is so delusional; White men are easily the most discriminated against group! #PanderingJudasRaceCuck

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. to the attention of Ms. Clinton,

    Please note: the latest correctest terminology is L.G.B.T.I.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @Leftist conservative

    I’ve been writing for a long time about how the Cult of Diversity is one of the best things ever to happen to billionaires
     
    what did you write about this, specifically?

    “what did you write about this, specifically?”
    You’re God. You should know these things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Well voting for Hillary won’t get rid of racism or sexism either, and in fact will only increase the latter, so by her argument we shouldn’t vote for her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @Clifford Brown
    Basically, high end bank robbers chanting "Attica!" to justify their crime.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB6Gk5EtunI
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    Oh, boy! What have we here? A Goldman-Sachs troll? Ha, ha! That’s a first.

    Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980′s and 90′s? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control …

    Yeah, I remember it well. I remember that those 3,234 institutions were liquidated by the Resolution Trust Corporation without any noticeable effect on the rest of the economy.

    Care to try gain, Mr. Blankfein? (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205)

    Read More
    • Replies: @epebble
    No Troll; Just a former RTC contractor who worked on the liquidating end of RTC. When I saw the documentation of the liquidating S&Ls, it was worse than what you may find in any 3rd world bank. When they saw it, the regulators would write a strong warning that would be ignored. Corruption, fraud etc. was widespread. FIN regulation is not like policing, there is a high degree of trust that the bank officials are basically honest. They can't "regulate" like a prosecutor and have any bank do its job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    epebble:

    So you don’t think there was any causality between deregulating the banks and S&L’s and the changes to depreciation schedules and allowable deductions in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, and the shortly subsequent real estate crisis and banking debacle?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yrt another story from DailyMail, getting common:

    EXCLUSIVE: ‘He put on my frilly nightie, and danced around playing his sax.’ Former Miss Arkansas says Bill Clinton was so-so in bed and confided Hillary was into sex with women. Now she fears Hillary vendetta and sleeps with loaded semi-automatic

    No wonder Hillary has been so adamant in trying to force gay pride parades down the throat of various reluctant east European countries. As time goes on these two seem sleazier and sleazier. We had George Washington once, now we have a running freak show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    Well, there's a mental image that will stick around all day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Rhetorical questions should always be formulated so that the answer is “Yes!” “Yes!” Hillary missed that lesson. It may cost her the presidency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Reg Cæsar

    Hillary Pulls Off the Mask
     
    The eugenics club at Wellesley made her pull off more than that.

    Euuuu… Or as they say where you live, ish…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Looks like Wall Street is finally getting some bang for the megabucks it has poured into her campaign.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. In my hopeful moments I wonder whether the last 8 years (I’m including the election season) has soured a majority of the American electorate on identity politics to a degree that Hillary would be rejected. It’s been so downright exhausting, and I have to wonder whether continuing the grinding (this time with sex in place of race) would be enough of a turn off to people to preclude a Hillary administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @iSteveFan
    No one is saying that the big banks have to be broken up into so many tiny banks that there would be too many banks to monitor. What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared 'too big to fail' be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer 'too big to fail', so that when one of these banks is in jeopardy, the taxpayers don't have to bail it out.

    “What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared ‘too big to fail’ be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer ‘too big to fail’,………..”

    The alternative is to just let the bank fail.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Banks just don't fail and disappear. The FDIC takes control, determines what is good and what is bad, then goes out and looks for buyers. This is where the failing big banks can easily be broken up. Lets say Citibank fails. The FDIC can sell it off anyway it likes. Banks are always selling off part of their loan portfolios or large sections of their branch network. The FDIC can put up for auction all New York deposits, loans and assets and only those. Another New York bank would buy them and it would be like two small New York banks merging.

    The Fed was afraid of all the derivative exposure these banks had which really should have been zero. Imagine all the contracts they had written against loans defaulting that did go bad but where they didn't have the capital to pay off on. The bank holding companies would have been fighting it out in bankruptcy court.

    I think this should have happened anyway because there is a difference between the bank and the bank holding company. It is probably messy legally, and I don't know the particulars, but the FDIC could probably have stepped in and told the holding company - tough luck we have the bank you have the derivative contracts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    “If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can’t even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes.”

    Wow – that’s insanely dense. 3,000 banks is too many, and yet somehow the IRS doesn’t seem to have a problem finding me (among 320 million other people) when I underpay my taxes by $12.

    3,000 banks sounds like a lot. The government has several million civilian employees to accomplish the task. I’m sure they’re up to it. Besides that, it doesn’t really matter if you divide a particular industry 50 ways or 5,000 ways. The industry will still be roughly as large and contain roughly as many employees. When it comes to regulating an industry, it’s the total size and scope of the industry that matters, not the number of unique institutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Speaking of Bill, Hillary, and banks: $153 Million in Bill and Hillary Clinton Speaking Fees, Documented.

    From February 2001 to May 2015, Bill and Hillary Clinton, uh, “earned” a total of (at least) $153.7 million in speaking fees. Bill gave 637 speeches averaging $211k each and Hillary gave 92 speeches averaging $235k each. Not sure if that counts a couple of colleges where she was shamed into donating the money to charity (mostly their own foundation).

    The article’s title implies it documents all of their speaking gigs, but it actually only “documents” $7.7 million worth that they gave to a few large banks (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc.) Here’s another link that documents all their gigs, but only since 2013.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @Seamus Padraig
    Oh, boy! What have we here? A Goldman-Sachs troll? Ha, ha! That's a first.


    Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980′s and 90′s? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control ...
     
    Yeah, I remember it well. I remember that those 3,234 institutions were liquidated by the Resolution Trust Corporation without any noticeable effect on the rest of the economy.

    Care to try gain, Mr. Blankfein? (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-tells-us-how-to-vote-20160205)

    No Troll; Just a former RTC contractor who worked on the liquidating end of RTC. When I saw the documentation of the liquidating S&Ls, it was worse than what you may find in any 3rd world bank. When they saw it, the regulators would write a strong warning that would be ignored. Corruption, fraud etc. was widespread. FIN regulation is not like policing, there is a high degree of trust that the bank officials are basically honest. They can’t “regulate” like a prosecutor and have any bank do its job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    FIN regulation is not like policing, there is a high degree of trust that the bank officials are basically honest. They can’t “regulate” like a prosecutor and have any bank do its job.
     
    Is it a law of nature that regulators have to rely on bankers' honesty for compliance, or can you imagine a system where regulators were regularly inspecting banks' books and where responsible executives of banks would be locked up behind bars for the rest of their lives?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    Yeah, it happened because Reagan cut funding for the regulators of the thrifts to the point of it being non-existent and the Garn – St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which allowed the problems of the thrift industry to linger on and bleed into the commercial banking industry which formerly had a monopoly on commercial lending. Now the banks and thrifts were in a race to the bottom as far as banking standards went (sound familiar). Prior to this act in order to get financing for an new office building, for example, a bank would require 20-30% equity by the principal and signed lease agreements. By the time this race was in full swing banks were lending 100% on spec. Developers were building ever more ridiculous monuments to their egos with expensive accouterments that ballooned the costs of these buildings to the point that they would ever make economic sense

    1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board’s regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year.

    Major provisions include: elimination of deposit interest rate ceilings; elimination of the previous statutory limit on loan to value ratio; and expansion of the asset powers of federal S&Ls by permitting up to 40% of assets in commercial mortgages, up to 30% of assets in consumer loans, up to 10% of assets in commercial loans, and up to 10% of assets in commercial leases.

    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/sandl/

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "the Garn – St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which allowed the problems of the thrift industry to linger on and bleed into the commercial banking industry"

    Indeed. Jake Garn, the sponsor of that bill, retired in disgrace at the end of his 1992 term for a bill that cost the US a fraction of what the real estate bubble would cost the US just 16 years later. In 1992 there was still this vaguely ridiculous notion called "accountability" (you can look it up in the OED or somewhere - I think it's a myth) and Garn knew he'd lose if he didn't retire.

    The guy who replaced him was Robert Bennett, a childhood friend (they both attended East High and the University of Utah), and Bennett lived in an era when the myth of accountability had finally died. Bennett and his allies and fellow RINOs all thought it was preposterous to hold politicians accountable for their actions, and Bennett was only chased out of the Senate at point of pitchfork. The RINO Establishment is still bitter at the indignity of being held "accountable."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Hepp
    Documents from the 90s indicate that Hillary was really uncomfortable with the whole gay rights thing. Is this her true self? Or is she just good at knowing which way the winds are blowing?

    I’m not at all convinced that Hillary values anything that doesn’t help to increase her own power and wealth. She’d probably let you set her own daughter on fire in exchange for enough votes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. They divide and conquer because it works. Big companies have played this game for years. Your company makes you go to diversity training not because it promotes harmony (the stated purpose) but because it creates tension (the actual purpose).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @Mike1
    The game is as old as time. Divide and conquer.

    It works on even the people that see it. Steve is an intellectual so he hates businessman. He wants a strong white culture but where is any power supposed to come from if a group gives up trying to win? Almost every win at some point derives from strong businessmen.

    The stated reason your company sends you to diversity training: to promote harmony.

    The actual reason your company send you to diversity training: to create tension and suspicion

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @epebble
    Actually, it is worse. If Big Banks are broken up into many little banks, the little banks will start screwing the little people. Little banks, being numerous, can't even be supervised and prosecuted when they commit crimes. Anyone remember the Savings and Loans Crisis of the 1980's and 90's? It happened because 3,234 institutions are hard to control; 1,043 "little banks" failed and caused the recession of late 80's and early 90's (helpfully creating Ross Perot, the earlier demagogue who helped end GHWB Presidency and usher in the Clinton era).

    Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis to find out why breaking up Big Banks into numerous little banks is not a good idea.

    Before thrifts were allowed to “grow their way out of their problems” with “reforms” during the Carter and especially the Reagan administrations, regulation was as simple as pie or maybe you forgot all those jokes about bankers hours.

    Back then all a thrift could do was make residential real estate loans which were single family houses and housing blocks with under 4 units. That is why you see so many 4 blocks in the older parts of a city. You tend to see them as the duplex on the bottom floor and the duplexes on the top or the 4 townhouse unit like the Monopoly game apartments.

    The thrifts took in deposits and made safe well documented home loans. They paid out more in interest than banks and charged less for home loans. That was their niche and the commercial banks got the rest.

    As long as interest rates stayed constant and low everything was fine. They started offering assumable mortgages just before interest rates went haywire and money market funds started sucking away their deposits.

    Unless the bank is involved in criminal activity, how difficult is it to determine if the bank is solvent when you only have a few main variables in a linear equation? You have your depositors accounts and the interest rate. You have the home loans and the interest rate. You have your costs and the amount of money you have set aside for loan losses. You have the number of problem loans and a reasonable determination of what the default rate will be and the percentage of the loan recoverable in foreclosure. There isn’t much more than that.

    The problem was that the House of Representatives biggest source of campaign cash was S&Ls which were usually smallish 1-3 branch office operations. Carter was supposedly given a report that it would cost 15 billion to wind down all the bad thrifts and roll the whole industry up. The FSLIC would have had more money for that operation but the deposit insurance rate had been reduced at the behest of the industry many years before. The roll-up wasn’t popular with the thrift owners, many who would be wiped out if they were insolvent beyond all reasonable help.

    As is usual they turn to the “experts” from the industry who deduce that the way out is to allow thrifts to branch out and make new loans so that the old assumable mortgages would be a much smaller percentage of their whole portfolio. When Carter’s deregulation didn’t fix the problem they do what they always do and dig the hole deeper. This also makes regulation a lot tougher since the mix of loans is more complex. Now add in a gutted regulatory agency, the ability to accept deposits from anywhere in the country, and sleazy developers buying thrifts so they can have their own private piggy bank and you get the mess it became.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Inflation caused a lot of problems for the old simple regulatory system. It made a good excuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @MarkinLA
    Before thrifts were allowed to "grow their way out of their problems" with "reforms" during the Carter and especially the Reagan administrations, regulation was as simple as pie or maybe you forgot all those jokes about bankers hours.

    Back then all a thrift could do was make residential real estate loans which were single family houses and housing blocks with under 4 units. That is why you see so many 4 blocks in the older parts of a city. You tend to see them as the duplex on the bottom floor and the duplexes on the top or the 4 townhouse unit like the Monopoly game apartments.

    The thrifts took in deposits and made safe well documented home loans. They paid out more in interest than banks and charged less for home loans. That was their niche and the commercial banks got the rest.

    As long as interest rates stayed constant and low everything was fine. They started offering assumable mortgages just before interest rates went haywire and money market funds started sucking away their deposits.

    Unless the bank is involved in criminal activity, how difficult is it to determine if the bank is solvent when you only have a few main variables in a linear equation? You have your depositors accounts and the interest rate. You have the home loans and the interest rate. You have your costs and the amount of money you have set aside for loan losses. You have the number of problem loans and a reasonable determination of what the default rate will be and the percentage of the loan recoverable in foreclosure. There isn't much more than that.

    The problem was that the House of Representatives biggest source of campaign cash was S&Ls which were usually smallish 1-3 branch office operations. Carter was supposedly given a report that it would cost 15 billion to wind down all the bad thrifts and roll the whole industry up. The FSLIC would have had more money for that operation but the deposit insurance rate had been reduced at the behest of the industry many years before. The roll-up wasn't popular with the thrift owners, many who would be wiped out if they were insolvent beyond all reasonable help.

    As is usual they turn to the "experts" from the industry who deduce that the way out is to allow thrifts to branch out and make new loans so that the old assumable mortgages would be a much smaller percentage of their whole portfolio. When Carter's deregulation didn't fix the problem they do what they always do and dig the hole deeper. This also makes regulation a lot tougher since the mix of loans is more complex. Now add in a gutted regulatory agency, the ability to accept deposits from anywhere in the country, and sleazy developers buying thrifts so they can have their own private piggy bank and you get the mess it became.

    Inflation caused a lot of problems for the old simple regulatory system. It made a good excuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    My guess is the offer of assumable mortgages was like getting a toaster when you opened a bank account. It was a sweetener that was assumed to cost next to nothing. If interest rates never change nobody will assume an old mortgage and takes on a high interest second if they are well qualified for a new first mortgage. Once the interest rates went crazy and all those "no money down" scamsters started appearing the thrifts couldn't get rid of those loans whose market value was less than half of what was owed without taking a big hit to their capital reserves. Now all those thrifts were technically insolvent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Mr. Anon
    "What they are wanting is for the big banks that have been declared ‘too big to fail’ be broken up into somewhat smaller units that are no longer ‘too big to fail’,..........."

    The alternative is to just let the bank fail.

    Banks just don’t fail and disappear. The FDIC takes control, determines what is good and what is bad, then goes out and looks for buyers. This is where the failing big banks can easily be broken up. Lets say Citibank fails. The FDIC can sell it off anyway it likes. Banks are always selling off part of their loan portfolios or large sections of their branch network. The FDIC can put up for auction all New York deposits, loans and assets and only those. Another New York bank would buy them and it would be like two small New York banks merging.

    The Fed was afraid of all the derivative exposure these banks had which really should have been zero. Imagine all the contracts they had written against loans defaulting that did go bad but where they didn’t have the capital to pay off on. The bank holding companies would have been fighting it out in bankruptcy court.

    I think this should have happened anyway because there is a difference between the bank and the bank holding company. It is probably messy legally, and I don’t know the particulars, but the FDIC could probably have stepped in and told the holding company – tough luck we have the bank you have the derivative contracts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Steve Sailer
    Inflation caused a lot of problems for the old simple regulatory system. It made a good excuse.

    My guess is the offer of assumable mortgages was like getting a toaster when you opened a bank account. It was a sweetener that was assumed to cost next to nothing. If interest rates never change nobody will assume an old mortgage and takes on a high interest second if they are well qualified for a new first mortgage. Once the interest rates went crazy and all those “no money down” scamsters started appearing the thrifts couldn’t get rid of those loans whose market value was less than half of what was owed without taking a big hit to their capital reserves. Now all those thrifts were technically insolvent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @epebble
    No Troll; Just a former RTC contractor who worked on the liquidating end of RTC. When I saw the documentation of the liquidating S&Ls, it was worse than what you may find in any 3rd world bank. When they saw it, the regulators would write a strong warning that would be ignored. Corruption, fraud etc. was widespread. FIN regulation is not like policing, there is a high degree of trust that the bank officials are basically honest. They can't "regulate" like a prosecutor and have any bank do its job.

    FIN regulation is not like policing, there is a high degree of trust that the bank officials are basically honest. They can’t “regulate” like a prosecutor and have any bank do its job.

    Is it a law of nature that regulators have to rely on bankers’ honesty for compliance, or can you imagine a system where regulators were regularly inspecting banks’ books and where responsible executives of banks would be locked up behind bars for the rest of their lives?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Reg Cæsar

    Hillary Pulls Off the Mask
     
    The eugenics club at Wellesley made her pull off more than that.

    “Made her” take her clothes off?

    If the late 20th Century taught me anything, it’s that girls will take off all their clothes, outside, in public, for photos (or just casual delectation), for damn near anything: art, civil rights, slut walks, peace rallies, rock concerts, anything.

    All they need is some authority figure to tell them it’s OK, and they’ll get nekkid as a jaybird.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Admittedly this is the Daily Mail – fairly right-wing and inclined to dislike Hillary Clinton. However, the author is ex-BBC and does not share that bias.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441623/Humiliation-Hillary-spouts-feminism-women-say-s-dishonest-bully.html

    He recounts an interview with Hillary after she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008.

    ‘How do you feel?’ was my imaginative question. But it was enough. The woman let rip. Ghastly, she said. Devastated. Bitter. In fact, she told me: ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’

    My jaw dropped. We couldn’t use her comments on the news. Too tasteless and offensive, particularly given the racial tinge — the victor being a black man and Hillary a white woman — but those words have stuck with me since.

    The MSM is mendacious in “not being able to use” self-destructive comments by a mainstream politician, while gleefully reporting every faux pas by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, et al. The writer is not describing his own bias, but his knowledge of what his superiors in London would run.

    Hillary’s racism and sense of entitlement would be enough to end the career of a conservative candidate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?
    , @anonymous

    ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’
     
    This person is an unreliable sociopathic liar. Remember her claim to have dodged bullets at a Bosnian airport when video showed no such thing? What's real and what's fake with this person?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. I’m sure this has been brought up but this is exactly the Cabin Boy parable of Ted Kaczynski. This is exactly it, exactly why “we” try to get people to read Kaczynski, it’s like hearing her unironically talk about goodbellyfeel.
    Tldr Cabin Boy: A crazy cruise ship crew avoids meaningful criticism about their insane Arctic heading by promising each separate minority meaningless privileges and slightly less hurtful new group words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @MarkinLA
    Yeah, it happened because Reagan cut funding for the regulators of the thrifts to the point of it being non-existent and the Garn - St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which allowed the problems of the thrift industry to linger on and bleed into the commercial banking industry which formerly had a monopoly on commercial lending. Now the banks and thrifts were in a race to the bottom as far as banking standards went (sound familiar). Prior to this act in order to get financing for an new office building, for example, a bank would require 20-30% equity by the principal and signed lease agreements. By the time this race was in full swing banks were lending 100% on spec. Developers were building ever more ridiculous monuments to their egos with expensive accouterments that ballooned the costs of these buildings to the point that they would ever make economic sense


    1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year.


    Major provisions include: elimination of deposit interest rate ceilings; elimination of the previous statutory limit on loan to value ratio; and expansion of the asset powers of federal S&Ls by permitting up to 40% of assets in commercial mortgages, up to 30% of assets in consumer loans, up to 10% of assets in commercial loans, and up to 10% of assets in commercial leases.

    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/sandl/

    “the Garn – St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which allowed the problems of the thrift industry to linger on and bleed into the commercial banking industry”

    Indeed. Jake Garn, the sponsor of that bill, retired in disgrace at the end of his 1992 term for a bill that cost the US a fraction of what the real estate bubble would cost the US just 16 years later. In 1992 there was still this vaguely ridiculous notion called “accountability” (you can look it up in the OED or somewhere – I think it’s a myth) and Garn knew he’d lose if he didn’t retire.

    The guy who replaced him was Robert Bennett, a childhood friend (they both attended East High and the University of Utah), and Bennett lived in an era when the myth of accountability had finally died. Bennett and his allies and fellow RINOs all thought it was preposterous to hold politicians accountable for their actions, and Bennett was only chased out of the Senate at point of pitchfork. The RINO Establishment is still bitter at the indignity of being held “accountable.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @inertial
    To be fair to Hillary, breaking up big banks won't solve whatever it is you consider real problems either.

    Nor will it really inconvenience billionaires.

    The only argument for breaking up big banks I’ve seen is that any bank so big it can’t be allowed to fail should be broken up into smaller banks that can be allowed to fail. An alternative is to regulate big banks like public monopolies–the city water company is too big and important to fail, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    An alternative is to regulate big banks like public monopolies–the city water company is too big and important to fail, too.
     
    I think that's the way to go. Small banks can and do cause systemic risks by failing, for example the US did have huge waves of interrelated bank runs and bankruptcies among the many thousands of small financial institutions in the early 1930s, and actually Lehman itself wasn't so big. It was a middling financial institution, not nearly as big as the biggest ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @James N. Kennett
    Admittedly this is the Daily Mail - fairly right-wing and inclined to dislike Hillary Clinton. However, the author is ex-BBC and does not share that bias.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441623/Humiliation-Hillary-spouts-feminism-women-say-s-dishonest-bully.html

    He recounts an interview with Hillary after she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008.

    ‘How do you feel?’ was my imaginative question. But it was enough. The woman let rip. Ghastly, she said. Devastated. Bitter. In fact, she told me: ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’

    My jaw dropped. We couldn’t use her comments on the news. Too tasteless and offensive, particularly given the racial tinge — the victor being a black man and Hillary a white woman — but those words have stuck with me since.

     

    The MSM is mendacious in "not being able to use" self-destructive comments by a mainstream politician, while gleefully reporting every faux pas by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, et al. The writer is not describing his own bias, but his knowledge of what his superiors in London would run.

    Hillary's racism and sense of entitlement would be enough to end the career of a conservative candidate.

    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think if a journalist debunked it, it would discourage other women from coming forward with their stories, so it shouldn't be investigated any further.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?
     
    She and everyone else had to pose for those freshman nudie shots at Wellesley. It's not rape, but does give off some of the same fumes as sexual assault.

    More Cosbyish than Clintonesque.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @anonymous
    Yrt another story from DailyMail, getting common:

    EXCLUSIVE: 'He put on my frilly nightie, and danced around playing his sax.' Former Miss Arkansas says Bill Clinton was so-so in bed and confided Hillary was into sex with women. Now she fears Hillary vendetta and sleeps with loaded semi-automatic
     
    No wonder Hillary has been so adamant in trying to force gay pride parades down the throat of various reluctant east European countries. As time goes on these two seem sleazier and sleazier. We had George Washington once, now we have a running freak show.

    Well, there’s a mental image that will stick around all day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. It’s interesting to ask whether someone like Goldman or Citibank is too big to fail because of the strain their failure would put on the economy, or because of their connections and large number of favors their top people can call in. There might be advantages in breaking up the biggest banks either way, but the likely outcome is different for the two different reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @a Newsreader
    Don't leave us hanging: did she look like more like a schnauzer or more like a pug?

    Yeah , Pugs have the best disposition of any dog unlike that desiccated carpet muncher .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @NOTA
    The only argument for breaking up big banks I've seen is that any bank so big it can't be allowed to fail should be broken up into smaller banks that can be allowed to fail. An alternative is to regulate big banks like public monopolies--the city water company is too big and important to fail, too.

    An alternative is to regulate big banks like public monopolies–the city water company is too big and important to fail, too.

    I think that’s the way to go. Small banks can and do cause systemic risks by failing, for example the US did have huge waves of interrelated bank runs and bankruptcies among the many thousands of small financial institutions in the early 1930s, and actually Lehman itself wasn’t so big. It was a middling financial institution, not nearly as big as the biggest ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @BB753
    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?

    I think if a journalist debunked it, it would discourage other women from coming forward with their stories, so it shouldn’t be investigated any further.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @BB753
    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?

    Raped as a teenager? Has Hillary ever mentioned that in some other occasion?

    She and everyone else had to pose for those freshman nudie shots at Wellesley. It’s not rape, but does give off some of the same fumes as sexual assault.

    More Cosbyish than Clintonesque.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @James N. Kennett
    Admittedly this is the Daily Mail - fairly right-wing and inclined to dislike Hillary Clinton. However, the author is ex-BBC and does not share that bias.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3441623/Humiliation-Hillary-spouts-feminism-women-say-s-dishonest-bully.html

    He recounts an interview with Hillary after she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008.

    ‘How do you feel?’ was my imaginative question. But it was enough. The woman let rip. Ghastly, she said. Devastated. Bitter. In fact, she told me: ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’

    My jaw dropped. We couldn’t use her comments on the news. Too tasteless and offensive, particularly given the racial tinge — the victor being a black man and Hillary a white woman — but those words have stuck with me since.

     

    The MSM is mendacious in "not being able to use" self-destructive comments by a mainstream politician, while gleefully reporting every faux pas by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, et al. The writer is not describing his own bias, but his knowledge of what his superiors in London would run.

    Hillary's racism and sense of entitlement would be enough to end the career of a conservative candidate.

    ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’

    This person is an unreliable sociopathic liar. Remember her claim to have dodged bullets at a Bosnian airport when video showed no such thing? What’s real and what’s fake with this person?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    She was no longer a teenager when she met Bill Clinton..So it wasn't Bill who raped her.. Sounds fishy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @anonymous

    ‘I was raped as a teenager but I have never felt as violated as I do today.’
     
    This person is an unreliable sociopathic liar. Remember her claim to have dodged bullets at a Bosnian airport when video showed no such thing? What's real and what's fake with this person?

    She was no longer a teenager when she met Bill Clinton..So it wasn’t Bill who raped her.. Sounds fishy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. […] On a related note, from the NY Times, 2/13/16 (h/t Steve Sailer) […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. […] Economic inequality?  Doesn’t he know that no vicious mean-spirited political attack on wealth inequality ever fed a hungry transgender? […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. […] light focus on economic populism.  Don’t get distracted or bogged down with SJW and identity politics.  That’s what ruined Occutards […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. […] Hillary Clinton said shortly after my “Alexander Hamilton, Honorary Nonwhite” […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. […] Hillary Clinton said shortly after my “Alexander Hamilton, Honorary Nonwhite” […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. […] would make a good speech for Mrs. Clinton (played by Nikki Minaj) to rap in […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. […] Democrats love unions, even unions closely aligned with Democrats, only in as much as they’re GOTV fodder and red team bashing fodder, and as long as the unions’ interests don’t collide with the interests of the Democrats’ billionaire donors.  If they do collide, then the Democrats as a party will side with the billionaires, then start screaming about social justice to distract the unions and anyone else so concerned. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. […] the [NYT] and others on social media.”  It’s like I’ve been telling you, and like Cankles herself admitted several months ago, that social justice warriorism is a […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored