Clinton.

This is incorrect.  Bill Clinton could note veto that bill.           Yes, he could have. Which you admit in the next sentence.

Well ok he could of but it wouldn't of mattered.

The Banking Modernizations act passed with a stunning  83% vote in the house of representatives meaning any veto would be overturned.     You need both houses of congress to pass a bill without presidential approval. Interesting how you neglected to post the senate. Allow me, 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed) Your point, however, stands. The Congress is to blame for as much of this as any President.

75% of House Democrats voted for the bill.  Largely because it was mostly a smart move.
How you can suggest this after the outcome is perplexing. Obviously the de-regulation has played a vital role in the economy of today. (Negatively)

Also, this didn't deregulate big banks really.  All it did was let the banks merge easier... assuming said banks got good CRA reviews.

Yes, yes it did. No, it allowed the banks to make investments. (Stock Market) Essentially allowing them to gamble with your, and my money.

Which is why they gave more unqualified loans.  Not because the bill had any new laws or lesser lending restrictions, but because to be able to merge and buy other banks, you needed to give said loans under CRA guidelines.

True, the bill had little impact on the unqualified loans. (MY BAD!) This was essentially the problem of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

GBL is actually seen as part of the GFC because it allowed banks to get "Too big to fail".   So really it's only a problem if you think there are banks that actually are too big to fail.

Define your acronyms before using them with such inpetuosity.

Doesn't seem that way to me though.   Let those banks fail, peoples debts be wiped clean, and if you need to normalzie credit (which never even happened so whatever) then throw money out there directly or empower the smaller more intellegent banks.

Prior to 2011, I would have agreed with you. Sometimes, it is a good investment to save a "Big Bank". If you need verification of this, look no further than Warren Buffet's investment in Goldman Sachs when they were struggling financially.

This is incorrect.  Bill Clinton could note veto that bill.           Yes, he could have. Which you admit in the next sentence.

Well ok he could of but it wouldn't of mattered.

The Banking Modernizations act passed with a stunning  83% vote in the house of representatives meaning any veto would be overturned.     You need both houses of congress to pass a bill without presidential approval. Interesting how you neglected to post the senate. Allow me, 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed) Your point, however, stands. The Congress is to blame for as much of this as any President.

75% of House Democrats voted for the bill.  Largely because it was mostly a smart move.
How you can suggest this after the outcome is perplexing. Obviously the de-regulation has played a vital role in the economy of today. (Negatively)

Also, this didn't deregulate big banks really.  All it did was let the banks merge easier... assuming said banks got good CRA reviews.

Yes, yes it did. No, it allowed the banks to make investments. (Stock Market) Essentially allowing them to gamble with your, and my money.

Which is why they gave more unqualified loans.  Not because the bill had any new laws or lesser lending restrictions, but because to be able to merge and buy other banks, you needed to give said loans under CRA guidelines.

True, the bill had little impact on the unqualified loans. (MY BAD!) This was essentially the problem of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

GBL is actually seen as part of the GFC because it allowed banks to get "Too big to fail".   So really it's only a problem if you think there are banks that actually are too big to fail.

Define your acronyms before using them with such inpetuosity.

Doesn't seem that way to me though.   Let those banks fail, peoples debts be wiped clean, and if you need to normalzie credit (which never even happened so whatever) then throw money out there directly or empower the smaller more intellegent banks.

Prior to 2011, I would have agreed with you. Sometimes, it is a good investment to save a "Big Bank". If you need verification of this, look no further than Warren Buffet's investment in Goldman Sachs when they were struggling financially.

Since the second world war, economic crises have become less frequent and less severe. That's thanks to central banks, welfare states,

Polling *has* to be a science, otherwise it's totally meaningless. If you just go around asking people questions, you can't be certain whether your sample was really random. If you go outside a church at noon on a Sunday and ask "how important is Jesus in your life" and then declare that these people represent everyone in your town or county, then you're likely to think your town or county is much more Christian than it might be.

Do you get it?