You actually posted a link from Hillary&#x27;s own website as supporting evidence?  Do you work for her campaign?<p>Your first link is good though, but it also supports reinstating Glass-Steagal (did you read it?).  It just makes the case that G-S wouldn&#x27;t have stopped the 2008 disaster, but that its repeal was part of the same bunch of deregulation that happened at that time period, by the same players.  It closes with a call to reinstate G-S, along with other legislation more focused on the actual causes of the 2008 crash, but it does say G-S is a good idea and that the financial system needs as many fail-safes of that kind as it can get.<p>So, going by your first link and ignoring your second one because it&#x27;s obviously going to be horribly biased, I don&#x27;t see any non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back G-S, but you do make a good case that G-S wouldn&#x27;t have avoided the 2008 problem.  However, again going by your first link, it does point out that Citigroup and Bank of America were also greatly involved in the 2008 housing crash and they <i>would</i> have been restrained from that by G-S, so I do think it&#x27;s fair to say that G-S would have <i>helped</i>, though it would not have <i>prevented</i> the crash.