Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
merrill

Why did Clinton Kill Glass-Steagal? To say that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to an economic collapse is flat out false ... and more in the future

Recommended Posts

BILL CLINTON Killed GLASS STEAGAL

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

The Glass-Steagall Legislation, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, was a law passed in the 1930s midst the Great Depression.  It is named after after its co-authors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall (both Democrats).

 

This legislation essentially did two major things: it established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and placed a separating wall between investment banking and commercial banking.  Provisions also included the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Regulation Q (which included lowering competition between commercial bank, limiting investment practices deemed as high risk, established ceilings on interests), and restricted speculation (in essence, limiting "speculative trading or carrying" of securities and real estate and limiting the amount in loans a bank of the Federal Reserve could lend).

 

The law also called for limiting Federal Reserve member banks in acting as brokers or dealers for lending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This law was definitely a move in the right direction for many years even after its enactment.  Separation of commercial banking and investment banking really is just common sense.

 

Why would you want investors gambling with your hard earned money, essentially playing risk with your earnings? It is as Senator Warren says: commercial banking should be "plain, old, boring banking." If a wall had been set between commercial and investment banking, we would not have seen a massive bailout because those deposits are federally insured.

 

The law's after effects contributed to a relatively stable financial system.  As Robert Reich, professor of economics and 22nd Secretary of Labor, states:

 

"For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system."

 

In fact, it was only when we started to de-regulate that we saw some bank failures (not on a cataclysmic scale, however).  The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis serves as a strong example of this.

 

In 1999, under then President Bill Clinton, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (officially known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) was passed.  This law repealed the most crucial portion of Glass-Steagall: separation of investment and commercial banking.  This law allowed banking entities, securities entities, and insurance companies to participate in investing, commercial, and insurance functions simultaneously.

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merrill said:

BILL CLINTON Killed GLASS STEAGAL

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

The Glass-Steagall Legislation, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, was a law passed in the 1930s midst the Great Depression.  It is named after after its co-authors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall (both Democrats).

 

This legislation essentially did two major things: it established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and placed a separating wall between investment banking and commercial banking.  Provisions also included the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Regulation Q (which included lowering competition between commercial bank, limiting investment practices deemed as high risk, established ceilings on interests), and restricted speculation (in essence, limiting "speculative trading or carrying" of securities and real estate and limiting the amount in loans a bank of the Federal Reserve could lend).

 

The law also called for limiting Federal Reserve member banks in acting as brokers or dealers for lending.

 

HEY !!  WHO IS THIS?  IT CAN"T be Merrill !!  THIS post MAKES SENSE !!

 

And is completely accurate !!

 

The NEXT question you should ask, is WHY did Bill Clinton SUE the major Banks for not making enough "Sub Prime" loans?... the TWO of which kick started the Sub Prime mess that President GW Bush took the BLAME for !!

 

Another good question, is WHY did Democrats in 2004 and 2005 FIGHT SO HARD to STOP any Investigation, or restructuring of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac?... they were BOTH corrupt, in 2004... but the House and Senate Democrats REFUSED to hear it !!  They KICKED it into 2015, and after Republicans lost the mid term election, and then KILLED the investigation in 2005 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

Glass-Steagall Act Would Be Revived In New Bill From Elizabeth Warren, Bipartisan Coalition By Zach Carter WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of four senators that includes Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced an updated version of the landmark Glass-Steagall Act on Thursday, aimed at reining in risk at America's largest Wall Street banks.

 

The repeal of Glass Stegal was sponsored by Republicans 

 

 

The two people Trump hates the most wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagal.

 

Warren, McCain Reintroduce Modern Glass-Steagall Act

 

350px-GrammLeachBliley.jpg

 

Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

 

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, is an act of the 106th United States Congress. It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the 1960s,

after I had graduated college,

I told my father,

who had lived through the Great Depression,

that people "were too smart, to let another Depression happen again."

 

My father laughed at me.

Somehow,

I bet he is still laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, peter45 said:

Somewhere in the 1960s,

after I had graduated college,

I told my father,

who had lived through the Great Depression,

that people "were too smart, to let another Depression happen again."

 

My father laughed at me.

Somehow,

I bet he is still laughing.

In the 2008 recession not everyone went broke.  More wealth was moved from the middle and bottom to the top than any time in history. The filthy greedy banksters bought enough votes to remove all the safeguards and the pig/sharks went on on a feeding frenzy.

 

Instead of Wall Street bankers jumping out of windows, they should have been thrown out of windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, RussianDisinformation said:

 

The repeal of Glass Stegal was sponsored by Republicans 

 

 

The two people Trump hates the most wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagal.

 

Warren, McCain Reintroduce Modern Glass-Steagall Act

 

350px-GrammLeachBliley.jpg

 

Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

 

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, is an act of the 106th United States Congress. It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial …

 

There is NO DOUBT that many Republicans supported the repeal of Glass-Stiegel... NONE !!   There os NO DOUBT that there were ALSO many Democrats who supported it... NONE !!   AND there is NO DOUBT that it was a Democrat President who signed the repeal  into law... NONE !!

 

BUT, NONE of that makes it any LESS of a mistake, OR makes the FACT that it was a DIRECT CONTRIBUTOR to the Sub Prime mess, the Real Estate and Bond ABUSES that it inspired, OR the Recession that almost destroyed our economy... NONE !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

There is NO DOUBT that many Republicans supported the repeal of Glass-Stiegel... NONE !!   There os NO DOUBT that there were ALSO many Democrats who supported it... NONE !!   AND there is NO DOUBT that it was a Democrat President who signed the repeal  into law... NONE !!

 

THEY SPONSORED IT! 

2 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

 

BUT, NONE of that makes it any LESS of a mistake, OR makes the FACT that it was a DIRECT CONTRIBUTOR to the Sub Prime mess, the Real Estate and Bond ABUSES that it inspired, OR the Recession that almost destroyed our economy... NONE !!

Here is who voted for it and it was mostly Republicans.

 

The GOP and Clinton did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

There is NO DOUBT that many Republicans supported the repeal of Glass-Stiegel... NONE !!   There os NO DOUBT that there were ALSO many Democrats who supported it... NONE !!   AND there is NO DOUBT that it was a Democrat President who signed the repeal  into law... NONE !!

 

BUT, NONE of that makes it any LESS of a mistake, OR makes the FACT that it was a DIRECT CONTRIBUTOR to the Sub Prime mess, the Real Estate and Bond ABUSES that it inspired, OR the Recession that almost destroyed our economy... NONE !!

The most important thing about having "liberals" versus "conservatives" paying attention to the illegal's situation,

is that they may never figure out that being a crooked politician,

is an equal opportunity profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, merrill said:

BILL CLINTON Killed GLASS STEAGAL

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

The Glass-Steagall Legislation, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, was a law passed in the 1930s midst the Great Depression.  It is named after after its co-authors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall (both Democrats).

 

This legislation essentially did two major things: it established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and placed a separating wall between investment banking and commercial banking.  Provisions also included the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), Regulation Q (which included lowering competition between commercial bank, limiting investment practices deemed as high risk, established ceilings on interests), and restricted speculation (in essence, limiting "speculative trading or carrying" of securities and real estate and limiting the amount in loans a bank of the Federal Reserve could lend).

 

The law also called for limiting Federal Reserve member banks in acting as brokers or dealers for lending.

Clinton didn’t kill glass-steagal. Gram leach bliley (all R) came to him with a veto proof majority. 

 

Thanks, Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RussianDisinformation said:

THEY SPONSORED IT! 

Here is who voted for it and it was mostly Republicans.

 

The GOP and Clinton did it!

 

SO WHAT?  Democrats SUPPORTED it, and BILL Clinton as President, SIGNED IT !!

 

Bill Clinton and the Democrats have AS MUCH responsibility as ANYONE regarding the repeal of Glass Steagall...

 

AND SO, the economic collapse that occurred BECAUSE of it... was as much THEIR Blame.. as it was George W. Bushes... and MAYBE MORE !! 

 

Why more?  Because George Bush tried to reign it all back in when he tried to investigate and regulate Fanny Mae and Freddy mac... BUT, the Democrats KILLED it, in 2004, and 2005  !!

 

WHAT ELSE is there to be said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ConservativeVoice said:

 

SO WHAT?  Democrats SUPPORTED it, and BILL Clinton as President, SIGNED IT !!

 

Bill Clinton and the Democrats have AS MUCH responsibility as ANYONE regarding the repeal of Glass Steagall...

 

AND SO, the economic collapse that occurred BECAUSE of it... was as much THEIR Blame.. as it was George W. Bushes... and MAYBE MORE !! 

 

 

Here's what liar. Most dems voted against it the except for Ron Paul.  Most Republicans voted for it. 

 

Who supported the repeal of Glass Steagal liar?

 

The economic collapse was the fault of the greedy still unpunished trash on Wall Street.  Bush's borrow and spending made it worse. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia was created by Republican, supported by Republicans and signed into law by Clinton. Therefore most of the blame falls on the banksters and the Republicans who created and supported it liar. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at all the lying crying liberal asswipes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, merrill said:

This law was definitely a move in the right direction for many years even after its enactment.  Separation of commercial banking and investment banking really is just common sense.

 

Why would you want investors gambling with your hard earned money, essentially playing risk with your earnings? It is as Senator Warren says: commercial banking should be "plain, old, boring banking." If a wall had been set between commercial and investment banking, we would not have seen a massive bailout because those deposits are federally insured.

 

The law's after effects contributed to a relatively stable financial system.  As Robert Reich, professor of economics and 22nd Secretary of Labor, states:

 

"For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system."

 

In fact, it was only when we started to de-regulate that we saw some bank failures (not on a cataclysmic scale, however).  The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis serves as a strong example of this.

 

In 1999, under then President Bill Clinton, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (officially known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) was passed.  This law repealed the most crucial portion of Glass-Steagall: separation of investment and commercial banking.  This law allowed banking entities, securities entities, and insurance companies to participate in investing, commercial, and insurance functions simultaneously.

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

Let's look at another major contributor to this crisis: Citigroup.  Citigroup had one of the worst impacts on the 2008 financial crisis because of its contribution to the subprime mortgage crisis.  Richard Browen, Citigroup's chief underwriter for lending, stated:

 

“In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective,” Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. “Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production.”

 

As late as 2012, Citibank was still involved in legal disputes, proposing a settlement of $590 million. Take into account, Citi received a total of $476.2 billion, making that "settlement" rather sweet for them and pretty lousy for the taxpayer.  Because of the securities that Citigroup invested in and the poor quality control standards, risk kept accumulating in the system, ultimately to the point of financial collapse.  Take into account, Citigroup is a bank where people deposit their money.  Under the Glass-Steagall provision, this high risk and predatory activity was simply impermissible.

 

The financial collapse back in 2008 had a lot of factors that resulted in the depressed economic conditions.  To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 3:08 PM,  merrill said: 

 

GLASS - STEAGAL

 

This law was definitely a move in the right direction for many years even after its enactment.  Separation of commercial banking and investment banking really is just common sense.

 

Why would you want investors gambling with your hard earned money, essentially playing risk with your earnings? It is as Senator Warren says: commercial banking should be "plain, old, boring banking." If a wall had been set between commercial and investment banking, we would not have seen a massive bailout because those deposits are federally insured.

 

The law's after effects contributed to a relatively stable financial system.  As Robert Reich, professor of economics and 22nd Secretary of Labor, states:

 

"For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system."

 

In fact, it was only when we started to de-regulate that we saw some bank failures (not on a cataclysmic scale, however).  The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis serves as a strong example of this.

 

In 1999, under then President Bill Clinton, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (officially known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) was passed.  This law repealed the most crucial portion of Glass-Steagall: separation of investment and commercial banking.  This law allowed banking entities, securities entities, and insurance companies to participate in investing, commercial, and insurance functions simultaneously.

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

Let's look at another major contributor to this crisis: Citigroup.  Citigroup had one of the worst impacts on the 2008 financial crisis because of its contribution to the subprime mortgage crisis.  Richard Browen, Citigroup's chief underwriter for lending, stated:

 

“In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective,” Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. “Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production.”

 

As late as 2012, Citibank was still involved in legal disputes, proposing a settlement of $590 million. Take into account, Citi received a total of $476.2 billion, making that "settlement" rather sweet for them and pretty lousy for the taxpayer.  Because of the securities that Citigroup invested in and the poor quality control standards, risk kept accumulating in the system, ultimately to the point of financial collapse.  Take into account, Citigroup is a bank where people deposit their money.  Under the Glass-Steagall provision, this high risk and predatory activity was simply impermissible.

 

The financial collapse back in 2008 had a lot of factors that resulted in the depressed economic conditions.  To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, RussianDisinformation said:

Here's what liar. Most dems voted against it the except for Ron Paul.  Most Republicans voted for it. 

 

Who supported the repeal of Glass Steagal liar?

 

The economic collapse was the fault of the greedy still unpunished trash on Wall Street.  Bush's borrow and spending made it worse. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act - Wikipedia was created by Republican, supported by Republicans and signed into law by Clinton. Therefore most of the blame falls on the banksters and the Republicans who created and supported it liar. 

 

 

 

HA!!   OK... so NOW I'm going to show EVERYONE who has the interest to look it up just EXACTLY who the LIAR is !!

 

First, If you look up the makeup of both the House and the Senate on the dates that the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" was passed, you will find that it was pretty close (although republicans held the edge)... Senate was something like 55-45, and House was something like 225-215... THEN, if you look at the votes, BOTH the House and the Senate passed the bill, BEFORE Bill Clinton signed it... in the House.. it passed something like 352-88... so, suffice to say a LOT of democrats voted for it too !!

 

Second, BILL Clinton COULD have vetoed it, but he didn't.. he SIGNED IT !!

 

Third,  In the mid 2000's (2004), George Bush tried to put the brakes on what Bill Clinton had opened the door to, by addressing fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac CORRUPTION !!  Republicans TRIED to get the hearings going, but the DEMOCRATS went APEcrap !!  They managed to stall the investigation, and the inquiry, in 2004, and then ENDED it when THEY took back congress in 2005 !!  BELOW are some You Tube clips from those hearings...

 

HOW MANY BILLIONS of DOLLARS could have been saved for the investors, IF Fanny May and Freddy Mac were NOT permitted to continue their illegal practices in 2004... FOUR YEARS before the wheels came off, and continued to FUND mortgages that people COULD NOT afford... HA!! We will never know because the DEMOCRATS ENDED IT...  Even though Republicans WARNED them what would happen... the Democrats CARED for the people THEN, JUST about as much as they do NOW !!

 

OH YES, the Democrats were AS MUCH to blame for the Sub Prime crisis as Republicans were... and PROBABLY MORE !!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ConservativeWAVE said:

 

HA!!   OK... so NOW I'm going to show EVERYONE who has the interest to look it up just EXACTLY who the LIAR is !!

 

First, If you look up the makeup of both the House and the Senate on the dates that the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act" was passed, you will find that it was pretty close (although republicans held the edge)... Senate was something like 55-45, and House was something like 225-215... THEN, if you look at the votes, BOTH the House and the Senate passed the bill, BEFORE Bill Clinton signed it... in the House.. it passed something like 352-88... so, suffice to say a LOT of democrats voted for it too !!

 

Second, BILL Clinton COULD have vetoed it, but he didn't.. he SIGNED IT !!

 

Third,  In the mid 2000's (2004), George Bush tried to put the brakes on what Bill Clinton had opened the door to, by addressing fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac CORRUPTION !!  Republicans TRIED to get the hearings going, but DEMOCRATS went APEcrap !!  The managed to stall the investigation and inquiry in 2004, and then ENDED it when THEY took back congress !!  BELOW are some you Tube clips from those hearings...

 

HOW MANY BILLIONS could have been saved for the investors, IF Fanny May and Freddy Mac were NOT permitted to continue their illegal practices, and FUND mortgages that people COULD NOT afford... HA!! We will never know because the DEMOCRATS STOPPED IT..

 

OH YES, the Democrats were AS MUCH to blame for the Sub Prime crisis as Republican... and PROBABLY MORE !!

 

 

I reported your spamming liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLASS - STEAGAL

 

This law was definitely a move in the right direction for many years even after its enactment.  Separation of commercial banking and investment banking really is just common sense.

 

Why would you want investors gambling with your hard earned money, essentially playing risk with your earnings? It is as Senator Warren says: commercial banking should be "plain, old, boring banking." If a wall had been set between commercial and investment banking, we would not have seen a massive bailout because those deposits are federally insured.

 

The law's after effects contributed to a relatively stable financial system.  As Robert Reich, professor of economics and 22nd Secretary of Labor, states:

 

"For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system."

 

In fact, it was only when we started to de-regulate that we saw some bank failures (not on a cataclysmic scale, however).  The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis serves as a strong example of this.

 

In 1999, under then President Bill Clinton, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (officially known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) was passed.  This law repealed the most crucial portion of Glass-Steagall: separation of investment and commercial banking.  This law allowed banking entities, securities entities, and insurance companies to participate in investing, commercial, and insurance functions simultaneously.

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

 

How does this relate to the 2008 crisis? It relates very strongly with the 2008 crisis? AIG, one company that was bailed out in the 2008 financial crisis, took a major role in the crisis and the bailout that came with it.  AIG, for all intents and purposes at the time, could be classified as a bank.  AIG was involved in credit default swaps.

 

In layman's terms, credit default swaps are agreements that basically say sellers will pay the buyer if something goes haywire in the deal.  It was discovered that nearly $441 billion in securities had a AAA rating (the highest possible rating in a credit report, saying this is a safe deal).

 

Low and behold, however, $57.8 billion of those supposed AAA securities were actually supported by subprime loans.  This was a primary cause of AIG's bankruptcy.  Here's a perfect example of how an insurance company took on banking functions and failed.  Had Glass-Steagall been in place, AIG would not have attained this sort of power.  Gramm-Leach-Bliley forbid the Federal Reserve from regulating any insurance holding companies.

 

Let's look at another major contributor to this crisis: Citigroup.  Citigroup had one of the worst impacts on the 2008 financial crisis because of its contribution to the subprime mortgage crisis.  Richard Browen, Citigroup's chief underwriter for lending, stated:

 

“In mid-2006, I discovered that over 60 percent of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective,” Bowen testified on April 7 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. “Defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80 percent of production.”

 

As late as 2012, Citibank was still involved in legal disputes, proposing a settlement of $590 million. Take into account, Citi received a total of $476.2 billion, making that "settlement" rather sweet for them and pretty lousy for the taxpayer.  Because of the securities that Citigroup invested in and the poor quality control standards, risk kept accumulating in the system, ultimately to the point of financial collapse.  Take into account, Citigroup is a bank where people deposit their money.  Under the Glass-Steagall provision, this high risk and predatory activity was simply impermissible.

 

The financial collapse back in 2008 had a lot of factors that resulted in the depressed economic conditions.  To say, though, that repeal of Glass-Steagall did not contribute to the collapse is flat out false.  History repeated itself from the 1930s.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/19/1413706/-The-Case-for-Financial-Regulation-Why-we-need-Glass-Steagall

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...