Something’s not right, I mean Hillary campaigning. I can understand if this were happening in India, Asia or even in the UK. At least here, the women have the grace to become widows before campaigning for political office.

Ok, some of you may feel that it’s none of my business. Well, let me remind them gentlemen of the strange affairs going on between the US Dollar and the world these days. Here’s the case to point:

Around 46% of the US debt of $18.187 Trillion (today’s figures) is held by foreign nations. In other words, each citizen owes $30,000 to foreign countries.

To clarify US Debt & India; the second largest bank over here (India) almost faced a run after the Sub-Prime fiasco. My bonds were in this bank; & ‘tumbled’. So in a sense, each American kid owes me a chip from their dimes.

Incidentally, the largest debt holder is China; reportedly $1.2 Trillion (2012 figures); “in bills, notes and bonds, according to the Treasury. As Mr. Michele Bachmann observed in 2012 “when it came to the debt "Hu's your daddy," (Hu Jintao, then President).

In case you Gentlemen are not convinced about my intrusion; yes it was Indian Gold, Tax & Rice that fed the British Army before and during the Great Wars (long before the USA joined in).

Yeah, where was I?

So the question is if Hillary Clinton is in the Oval Office then is Bill going to stay away? Or with the Chinese at your doorsteps do you need both the Presidents?

still only one!
Guess who wore the Pants last time?

down around his ankles is still wearing them right

but seriously regardless of the past only one of them gets to sign on the line so to speak.

so why should a woman have to be a widow to campaign if a man does not have to be a widow to campaign?


Honestly sometimes I think we should close the borders and take down the satellites lol


(just kidding)

Hmmm, can't provide you with a true comparison of the way our government compares to India because I'm not that familiar with the full deal workings for India's government; but switch that around and it would explain why you shouldn't do the same about our system either!
Since our 'Women' have had the RIGHT TO VOTE and we have the right to run for office - we don't have to wait until we are "WIDOWS" to campaign for the position that our husband might have held at one time in the past; not even the president of the United States of America!
And while there are many of us Americans that are concerned about former President Bill Clinton's role as First Husband {should Hillary R. Clinton win} one can only hope that he finds a hobby - maintains some suitable decorum of public and private behavior that will keep him out of the media eye!
BTW - our debt to foreign countries has never played a large issue in whom we vote into office - not that it shouldn't but it just never has in the past; and our debt to Republic of China is $1.3 trillion and Japan $1.2 trillion public was owned by foreign investors {as of Nov. 2014}

I'm confused about this ' widow thing'..

Bill Clinton & Hillary R Clinton have been divorced a long time.
And this will be her SECOND time running for President.
She is also the one of THREE woman to run for President.

And American presidents are ELECTED. It is not passed down.
* Fortunately*

Most Americans, from what I hear....
Want President Obama out. And do NOT want ANYONE named Clinton or Bush or Kennedy or ANY of the OLD political career families.
They are ' out of touch' with the middle class & poor.

.

Iam not,,and no my kidds dont owe you sheet,,,,LOL

Did you know all 44 U.S. presidents have carried European royal bloodlines into office? 34 have been genetic descendants from just one person, Charlemagne, the brutal eighth century King of the Franks. 19 of them directly descended from King Edward III of England. In fact, the presidential candidate with the most royal genes has won every single American election.

'This information comes from Burke's Peerage, which is the Bible of aristocratic genealogy, based in London. Every presidential election in America, since and including George Washington in 1789 to Bill Clinton, has been won by the candidate with the most British and French royal genes. Of the 42 presidents to Clinton, 33 have been related to two people: Alfred the Great, King of England, and Charlemagne, the most famous monarch of France. So it goes on: 19 of them are related to England's Edward III, who has 2000 blood connections to Prince Charles. The same goes with the banking families in America. George Bush and Barbara Bush are from the same bloodline - the Pierce bloodline, which changed its name from Percy, when it crossed the Atlantic. Percy is one of the aristocratic families of Britain, to this day. They were involved in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament at the time of Guy Fawkes"

If America declared its Independence from the European monarchies in 1776, how is it possible that every single president has descended from European monarchs? If presidents are democratically elected as we are told, what are the odds that we would always choose members of British and French royal bloodlines to lead us?

"The Americas have always been owned and governed by the same royal families of Britain and Europe that conventional history states as being among those defeated during the wars of so-called "Independence."" -Michael Tsarion, - Astrotheology and Sidereal Mythology

"If it really is the Land of the Free and if, as is claimed, anyone really can become the president, you would fairly expect that the 43 presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush would express that genetic diversity. You're having a laugh. The presidents of the United States are as much a royal dynasty as anything in Europe, from whence their bloodlines came."

I knew about 30 of them were/ are cousins. But now, I think I'm going to be sick.

lol, George Washington was Po'd that my family blood lines had a King's grant of land from the King's Representative in the 7

lol, George Washington was Po'd that my family blood lines had a King's grant of land from the King's Representative in the 1740's. We had to change the spelling of our last name.

I read all this with quite an amusing smile and a chuckle; the most recent incident of finding poor Richard III buried under a paved area in mid London and having to prove his DNA has caused quite the stir within the tabloids of jolly ole' England...so to say that those BLUE BLOODS and their lineage run so tried and true would be something that has now proved to be FALSE!

Pssst - they slept around and lied about it!!!

Men through out history always thought they were the only ones the could or should or could get away with .. playing around.

Of course by law, the legal husband is the father.. Oh well.

i acually liked bill when he was in office, but i already know hillary won't do a good job, so she won't be getting my vote

looks like when we discuss economics these days, we become a border-less society. Free Trade was something pushed aggressively by USA and now when it seems to boomerang...

Going by the comments, some substantial points have opened up, in fact '3 Scenarios' and so I venture to present them. In fact, if we touch on them with cold logic, then its at a cost of shifting from my original stand.
There now appears the need for 2 presidents in the White House and here's why.



Thanks Angel, this opens up Scenario 1:

Now how did the Sub-Prime take root with Bill Clinton in the chair? I mean, look at the scale of damage. Clinton could have seen this unfold.

Damages:
23 American commercial banks (100 if one includes FM S&L and state credit unions); 31 overseas banks on whom the sub-prime was unloaded: the likes of Barclays, Deutsche Bank, , ING, Bankia Bank; all bailed out by respective governments: UK, France, Germany, Spain.

What one of the Wall Street Players, Carlyle Capital Corporation disclosed was that for every $1 of equity, (& Carlyle Capital had a $22bn fund) they leveraged it out as $32 of loans.

Wikipedia lists just 1.6 trillion as losses and does contain information on overseas losses. All said, between 2 to 2.5 trillion in loans could have been forked out by the Players. Who knows? And where did this kind of money go? I mean, just dissolving Lehman Brothers is like a Houdini Trick.
Totally unfair. Matter is not limited to American wealth.

Conclusion 1: I believe, Starr Investigation was on when the Sub-prime was taking root; but due to Starr, substantial energy of Bill Clinton got deflected. Under the circumstances he was reluctant to open up a new front...
--xx--

Scenario 2: The 18 Trillion Debt.
1993: Clinton wins the elections on one statement: ‘It’s the economy, stupid’.
National Debt: 3 trillion

2008: Congress passes the bill authorizing U.S. Treasury to “advance funds for the purpose of stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac” raising the Treasury's debt ceiling by $800 billion
National Debt: 10.7 trillion


2015: National Debt: 18.188 T
Interest charges at $2.5 T
National GDP of 17 T (yields a Tax Revenue of just 3.7 trillion)
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Significant difference between 1998 and 2015 is that 46% of this Debt (treasury bills) is held by overseas governments and institutions.

Conclusion 2: Requires full time attention of the US President
--xx--

Scenario 3: World Affairs.
It is a full time job to contain:

i. Russia from absorbing Ukraine;

ii. Chinese expansionist moves to mine the oceans in South East Asia;

iii. ISIS incursions all over middle-east and now sprouting in Europe, Africa &

iv. Maintaining the faith of the World on the US Dollar.

Those days of CIA / KGB / M15 are no longer relevant, not with the demise of the Soviet Union and the re-emergence of Russia as a new economic power.

Further, a Secretary of State can no longer influence world affairs. I mean both Ms. Clinton & Mr. Kerry had visited India, but deals are closed when the president visits.

Conclusion 3: So now that the world is heavily mined into the dollar we cannot wait for an American President who will spare time after he is freed from domestic issues.
--xx--

All of the above leads to one sobering thought: The American Presidency is no longer a one man job.

So then "why not the Clinton(s)?" is just another way of presenting this 'crown of thorns'.

Oh, TY for clarifying your '2 president' question; I was going a totally different direction as in - he was but he won't be - NOW! But you've explained that you feel that the JOB itself is just too big and needs more than one person to oversee all of the complex - worldly priority items!

A. your example while sound and mathematically proven left out a gapping hole in the premise: GWB and his advisors allowing the Securities to disregard the "RULES & REGULATIONS" for writing those horrid mortgage value papers {that weren't worth even the paper they were written on} and then bundled them to resale to other lending institutions --- therein laid the PONZI SCHEME OF ALL TIME and some cretins were sitting where they were going to make billions and the trickle down was going to leave millions of Americans and their 401K plans BUSTED Thank all that is HOLY that GWB wasn't able to push his privatization of our Soc Sec. plan as he so desired --- and he was highly pissed that he didn't get his way! Silly Bast*rd

B. Germany had been pouring money into America for years; during those golden years of dear sainted Ronnie Reagan...all those quickly lending institutions known as: Savings & Loans {Beneficial Finance/Money Market Lending etc., etc., etc.,} were all backed by the German investors {something else that the Bush Brothers Neal & George - were able to make millions off of and never get their greedy hands dirty but their fellow directors went to prison over}...once again lack of over sight and lazy watch dog security exchange humans allowed this to happen and people lost their savings and 100 of thousands got ROBBED and nothing was done and loads of banks closed {circa the late 80's}

Our President has a Vice President and if that position was allowed to handle more {President Clinton tried when he gave Hillary the job of writing up a Healthcare Plan} but for ages the VP has been nothing more then a notable talking head to make appearances in & at any public function that the POTUS can't or won't attend.

We have a over blown group of 'ADVISORS' that fill our presidents early morning with what is going on and what they need to know: Briefings and Security issues go on non-stop...would you really want that split up and some one else involved --- think how murky and fouled up those NIXON tapes and years would have been!!! UGH No Thank you...1 President is quite sufficient for me.

Very interesting..

Here's a little something for you..

On the repeal of Glass Steagall:

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).

"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen. Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/11/glass-steagall-act-the-se_n_201557.html


On derivative regulation:

Back in May 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, then chaired by Brooksley Born, issued a memo noting it was "re-examining its approach to the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market."

And the response:

Larry Summers blasted the CFTC for having raised" the possibility of increased regulation over this market." And he hailed derivatives:

The dramatic growth of the market in recent years is testament not merely to the dynamism of modern financial markets, but to the benefits that derivatives provide for American businesses.

By helping participants manage their risk exposures better and lower their financing costs, derivatives facilitate domestic and international commerce and support a more efficient allocation of capital across the economy. They can also improve the functioning of financial markets themselves by potentially raising liquidity....OTC derivatives directly and indirectly support higher investment and growth in living standards in the United States and around the world.

Even "small regulatory changes," Summers cautioned, could throw the whole system out of whack. Determined to slap down the CFTC, his Treasury Department, the Fed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission crafted a proposal that would prohibit the CFTC from issuing new rules regulating any swap or "hybrid instrument."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/11/obama-taps-larry-summers-recalling-summers-days-regulation-foe

Bush proposes to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

What does Barney Frank have to say?

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

And Mr Watt pulls out the race card..

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

I used left wing sites as my sources..

I've found the NYTIMES to be less creditable in the past 15 years {as shocking as that has become - sad but true} so I'll read several other sources just to counter balance what other news/media outlets our saying about the same thing - then I'll check back with 'FACKCHECK.ORG' for the final say! Kind of the 3rd and final source!
REGARDING the Repeal of Glass Steagall

It'��s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor’s Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.

The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn'��t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility � with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here'��s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

*********And this well publicized GEM that was thrown around numerous media outlets and was still a LIE!!! **********

News satire is all in good fun until credible figures begin posting made-up quotes as real ones on their blogs or websites.

For the record, Dodd and the Democrats did oppose Corker’s amendment, S.A. 3955, which would have rewritten whole sections of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. (The 5 percent requirement was but one small part of Corker’s proposal.) Dodd said one reason he opposed the measure is that it would have disadvantaged homebuyers with good credit and income, but without the cash to make a 5 percent down payment. But Corker’s amendment also would have stripped out a requirement that mortgage packagers keep a financial interest in the mortgage securities that they sell to others — an idea Dodd said was aimed at discouraging lenders from making loans to people who can’t repay them.

Dodd, May 11: So why am I putting skin in the game? Because if you do not have skin in the game, if you do not have a vested interest financially in the outcome, you do not care what happens, unfortunately, in too many cases. You have been paid. You have got out your dollar. You have been compensated as the broker; you have been compensated as the lending institution; you wash your hands of the whole thing.

Dodd’s May 11 floor statement, detailing his objections to Corker’s amendment, appears on pages S3517 through S3521of the Congressional Record. He repeated his "skin in the game" argument on May 12 at the time of the vote.

The Senate bill is now in conference with the House version.

Joshua Goldman
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/satire-alert-dodds-quote-on-mortgages/

************************************************
Guess this just will be one of those historic making years that we can trash to infinity and beyond but we'll just have to because there is undoubtedly enoughto share both all concerned by all parties! AGREED???