HILLARY CLINTON'S CHARACTER DEFICIENCY DISQUALIFIES HER, BILL NO BETTER


Hillary Clinton for president?? The best among us no longer present for elective office and American voters willfully vote for the worst who do.”

Hillary Clinton is, frankly, a disgusting person. Bill Clinton is little better, if any. Neither fundamental honesty, nor good character nor intellectual integrity define them. And, Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favorite to be elected president. I am totally saturated with their dishonesty, corruption, their feeding at the troughs of government, businesses and academic institutions. The effect of their presence in the American political arena is not positive. Oh how far they have strayed from the personal doctrine of Harry Truman who declared he would not use his fame and his office for personal monetary gain. And, he lived by that declaration. Both Clintons are the antithesis of Truman. They use their government positions, past and present, to siphon 100's of millions of dollars from businesses, academic institutions and from whomever wants to use them to access the feeding trough of the US government and and institutions where Clinton influence can be beneficial.

Both are serial liars. Harsh word but justifiable. Hillary Clinton lost jobs early in her career allegedly for lying. She has been deep in scandals most of her public career and is so immersed currently for what surely appears to be deliberate malfeasance, possibly criminal, in her position of Secretary of State. Yet the probability of her being the Democrat/”Progressive” Party's nominee and of her becoming President of the United States is quite high. While she is under investigation by the FBI, I doubt she'll be indicted in spite of any evidence that would justify it. Both Clintons always manage to avoid accountability for their malfeasance.

Bill Clinton continues too speak utterly disingenuously about past economic conditions, including both those during his presidency as well as the conditions of G. W. Bush's time. As he did in the 2012 election, Clinton rails about the failed policies of the past. Most recently he has re-claimed the left-wing mantra, “trickle- down economics.” He's not telling the truth about any aspect of past economies, not much truth at all. The economy during his administration was largely good, not because of his actions but more because he was held in check by a Gingrich-led Congress. This is not meant to imply that he was overall a “failed” president. He did well in some ways such as welfare reform. But, his action on the home mortgage business, his bastardizing of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 to be exact, was the precursor to the economic melt-down of 2008. The economic effect was, and is, hugely negative. However, most do not know that Clinton was complicit, the precursor in fact, and are reluctant to admit it when revealed to them. Media have been loathe to publish anything negative about Clinton. So, how was Clinton's action a precursor to the economic meltdown?

In 1994, Clinton with assistance of Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, an executive from the large money center banks and 26 years at Goldman Sachs, finally as co-chairman, pushed for mortgages for about any buyer who applied for one. Qualifications were minimized and even eliminated in some cases. No document (“no doc”) loans were common. Some traditionally conservative banks were pushed hard, even intimidated, to grant mortgages to unqualified home buyers. Some more aggressive banks got into the game seeing it as a way to grant mortgages with low initial interest rates that could, in months, be raised to much higher rates with what would be large financial returns. That is, if borrowers did not default! But, they did! Some banks even granted bonuses to loan production people to bring bad credit to the banks.

In 1995 mortgages were granted at 2.5 times the number in 1994 and 4 times any previous year, prior to the qualification changes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac absorbed these mortgages and took huge losses. But, ultimately, taxpayers paid the highest price for the financial malfeasance!

To complete the malpractice in finance, Glass Stegall, the statute that prevented commercial banks from participating in business other than banking, was repealed. Glass-Stegall prevented banks from
doing business in securities investments. Repeal of Glass-Stegall paved the way for investment banks, like Rubin's Goldman Sachs to participate in any aspect of banking. The bill to repeal Glass Stegall was carried in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm and Representatives Tom Bliley and Jim Leach. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law in 1999. Only someone in denial would not think Robert Rubin, the investment banker, was involved in this repeal. Anyway, it paved the way to complete the debacle of granting mortgages to unqualified home owners. Bill Clinton never acknowledges his complicity and his compliant sycophantic media give him a pass.

Absent the constraints of Glass Stegall, money center investment banks bundled aforementioned “bad” mortgages into what they named Structured Investment Vehicles (SIV's) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO's). That is, huge investment vehicles without asset backing. Stability and any return to investors depended entirely on the individual loan holders in the bundle not defaulting. People who had no qualifications and some with no employment defaulted in large numbers, as should have been expected. The “house of cards” came tumbling down.

All of these actions were precursors to the economic melt-down of 2008. Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin were responsible for using the CRA as justification for expanding the mortgage/banking to unreliable buyers and the whole US economy virtually collapsed. Taxpayers and the nation paid the highest price when forced to bail out banks. To be fair, it should be noted that President Bush, while not a party in the financial scheme, did endorse it with the “house for everyone” notion he put forth.

Bill Clinton is being utterly intellectually dishonest when he speaks of failed “policies of the past” and does not admit his own complicity.

Now we have Hillary Clinton feeding heavily from the banking troughs at more than $220K per speech, plus and equal amount in expenses, to Wall Street banks, $675K from Goldman Sachs alone. She also charges similar fees to speak to colleges where cost to matriculate at most is becoming prohibitive for many.

It's also reported, by the venerable Dr. Charles Krauthammer for one, that the Clinton's company in Canada is nothing more than a money laundering operation. The two Clintons, and their daughter, have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it under the guise of the Clinton Foundation. Millions of foreign dollars flow through these operations. Who can assert that this money, including foreign sourced, does not flow into Hillary Clinton's campaign.

With the misdeeds of both Clintons elucidated, none should ignore the factors as disqualifying her for the presidency? Unfortunately, millions of “Progressive Democrat” voters will ignore the facts and are likely to elect her. Seems each election finds us sinking to a new low. We do, too often, elect the worst who present for elective office.

How far we have strayed from the founders' vision that accomplished people, those of achievement in private life would lend themselves, their knowledge, skills, and proven expertise to the masses, the public, for a period of time and then return to their private life and enterprises. Today demonstrated achievements are not considered necessary. Who's to blame? Voters!

For extensive details, please enter in the search block of this blog - "ECONOMY OF THE 90s" June 11, 20122 and
 
ECONOMY – “FAILED POLICIES OF THE PAST LED TO MELTDOWN” – TRUTH VS. OBAMA'S MANTRA Sept 4, 2012

Comments

  1. Our society is overwhelmed with so much my guess is most people aren't either informed or take time to even think about this fork in the road. I remember during the Obama/Clinton first presidential debate talking with a customer service rep on the telephone. She said she wasn't aware of what is going on. She works two full-time jobs, drives an hour each way to one of the jobs, and has about all she can handle life. Then we likely all have seen or heard the Man in the Street interviews: many people today don't know either the VPs name or face. Situations like this don't foretell well for the direction of our country.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, Pat. There are many people who are too burdened to read or listen to such information. However, I believe there are more who just don't care and don't internalize the information out of neglect or an attitude that causes them to only hear and see what confirms their bias. This confirmation bias is profound on both political side, but the left have far more vehicles to give them the information they want. The "Progressive" aka left-wing propaganda network is very aggressive. Thank you for your input!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat makes a strong point. Sadly I must admit I was one of them. Working, volunteering in my sons schools and homework, soccer practice, on and on. I read the Daily Press and watched Ch 10 news. I believed that I was informed. It wasn't until the race for 2008 that I started to pay attention a little. But it took Obama winning and yes, Glenn Beck, to wake me up. Many think he is nuts, but, he brought many issues and things about Obama, his connections and his history as well as his plans, to light. He made me question our election process and the media. When Fox got rid of him, I began to realize they didn't like what he was finding and didn't want us to know either. (yes, I think he's gone off the deep end since then) That it took me so long to realise that I had been duped really shook me up. So one day, I spoke with my husband about it. He said, you always read one paper, watch one type of news, how can you believe you are informed? You need to read a variety of papers and watch diff news channels. Digest what you've taken in and then check the facts. Something in me snapped. I didn't just believe what Glenn said. I started digging and digging. The more I dug, the madder I got. But all that took a lot of time. The majority of people do not have that time. They rely on a neighbor or friend's or family member's point of view. They trust them to be right. They wouldn't lead them wrong. Right?

      Then you have people who say "it doesn't matter. My vote doesn't count anyway" or "no ones listening to us regular people anymore". Which we've heard more and more from around the country this time around.

      Lastly, I could be wrong, but it seems that the Liberal Left have a much stronger ground game, play the game and do whatever works (in gov and out). They portray that they speak and care for all (which we know isnt true), but they do it so well. I don't see the Rep party speaking to the millenials, Hispanics, even blacks, like the left does. We need to bring in the younger generations. Talk to the average man. Speak to everyday issues. When I listen to many, not all, of our Rep politicians, they seem to talk 'over us' or 'past us'. The Dems, like Hillary, talk 'to you'. Am I making any sense? We need to be proactive instead of reactive. And I also think, when it came to many of our candidates this time around, we got tired of hearing the same talking points over and over. Almost word for word. Speech after speech. Debate after debate. People get numb. Tune the candidate out.

      Delete
    2. Pat makes a strong point. Sadly I must admit I was one of them. Working, volunteering in my sons schools and homework, soccer practice, on and on. I read the Daily Press and watched Ch 10 news. I believed that I was informed. It wasn't until the race for 2008 that I started to pay attention a little. But it took Obama winning and yes, Glenn Beck, to wake me up. Many think he is nuts, but, he brought many issues and things about Obama, his connections and his history as well as his plans, to light. He made me question our election process and the media. When Fox got rid of him, I began to realize they didn't like what he was finding and didn't want us to know either. (yes, I think he's gone off the deep end since then) That it took me so long to realise that I had been duped really shook me up. So one day, I spoke with my husband about it. He said, you always read one paper, watch one type of news, how can you believe you are informed? You need to read a variety of papers and watch diff news channels. Digest what you've taken in and then check the facts. Something in me snapped. I didn't just believe what Glenn said. I started digging and digging. The more I dug, the madder I got. But all that took a lot of time. The majority of people do not have that time. They rely on a neighbor or friend's or family member's point of view. They trust them to be right. They wouldn't lead them wrong. Right?

      Then you have people who say "it doesn't matter. My vote doesn't count anyway" or "no ones listening to us regular people anymore". Which we've heard more and more from around the country this time around.

      Lastly, I could be wrong, but it seems that the Liberal Left have a much stronger ground game, play the game and do whatever works (in gov and out). They portray that they speak and care for all (which we know isnt true), but they do it so well. I don't see the Rep party speaking to the millenials, Hispanics, even blacks, like the left does. We need to bring in the younger generations. Talk to the average man. Speak to everyday issues. When I listen to many, not all, of our Rep politicians, they seem to talk 'over us' or 'past us'. The Dems, like Hillary, talk 'to you'. Am I making any sense? We need to be proactive instead of reactive. And I also think, when it came to many of our candidates this time around, we got tired of hearing the same talking points over and over. Almost word for word. Speech after speech. Debate after debate. People get numb. Tune the candidate out.

      Delete
    3. Pettie, your comments are profound, spot on and useful. Your final paragraph is absolutely correct. Would you consider approving my posting this so more can see it. I'm not pushing, but if you are comfortable doing so, I think it could get attention and elicit actions by others. Just a thought. Thank you!!

      Delete
    4. Sorry. Just saw your request. I do not mind if you share. Whatever works.

      Delete
  3. Charles Misak02 May, 2016

    Joe, great article in today's WSJ by Mr. Wallison on the financial meltdown. His assessement is as yours, which is the truth of this matter. He places the paltry 2% GDP growth over the last 7 years being the result of the Dodd-Franks bill. One of the worst pieces of legislation in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Chuck. It is a good piece. However, although Dodd-Frank is a horrible piece of legislation, I cannot ascribe as much of the financial slowdown to it that Wallison does. Virtually every initiative from the Obama administration is antithetical to capital formation, hence negative to GDP growth and job creation.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LEFTIST MIND-SET OF TODAY -- REFLEXIVE, THOUGHTLESS SUPPORT FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

AMERICAN AIRLINES -- MORE ABOUT UNIONS AND CH 11

OBAMA'S COSTLY VACATIONS AND CAMPAIGNING ON THE US TREASURY