Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Return of the Great Triangulator: Clinton's financial deregulation created this economic mess

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:34 PM
Original message
Return of the Great Triangulator: Clinton's financial deregulation created this economic mess
Edited on Thu Dec-16-10 03:48 PM by Better Believe It


Return of the Great Triangulator
By Robert Scheer
December 15, 2010

The sight of Bill Clinton back on the White House podium defending tax cuts for the super-rich was more a sick joke than a serious amplification of economic policy. How desperate is the current president that he would turn to the great triangulator, who opened the floodgates to banking greed, for validation of the sorry opportunistic hodgepodge that passes for this administration’s economic policy? A policy designed and implemented by the same Clinton-era holdovers whose radical deregulation of the financial industry created this mess in the first place.

These dislocations were authorized when Clinton signed off on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which reversed the Glass-Steagall Act’s separation between the high rollers of investment banking and the properly conservative, insured and regulated activities of commercial banks entrusted with the life savings of ordinary folks. With a stroke of a pen that he then presented as a gift to Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill, Clinton opened the door to the too-big-to-fail monstrosities that have caused so much misery.

Back in 1999, even though he had been warned of the coming financial instability, foreshadowed by the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Clinton was giddy in signing the bill: “Over the past seven years we have tried to modernize the economy,” he enthused. “And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority.”

A year later Clinton signed off on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, advanced most fiercely by his treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, who has been the dominant personality setting economic policy for Obama. Titles 3 and 4 of that act summarily exempted from the surveillance of any existing regulatory agency or laws all of the newfangled financial gimmicks—the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps—that have proved so toxic to the jobs and homes of tens of millions of Americans.



Watch and Learn

Read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/return_of_the_great_triangulator_20101215/


Here once again are the unchallenged facts on financial/Wall Street deregulation. BBI

Back in November 1999, Congress passed legislation pushed by then Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), rescinding the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. The measure, backed by the Clinton administration, and overwhelmingly passed by the Senate (90-8) and the House (362-57), opened the way for banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies, and led directly to the current financial cataclysm.

What they said in 1999 about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act:

Larry Summers, he wasn't a Senator but is the director of President Obama’s National Economic Council:

"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. This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY):

"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. 'There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."


Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas):

"The world changes, and we have to change with it. We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer."

Senator Bob Kerry (D-NB):

“The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown.”

--------------

And those who spoke out against this insane measure:

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), one of seven Senate Democrats who voted against revoking Glass-Steagall, said in 1999:

“I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010. I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness."

Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who also voted against repeal said:

“…determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes. Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: CHRISTI HARLAN
Friday, November 12, 1999 202-224-0894

GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY
FOR GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT


Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, made the following statement today in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law:

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it.

"Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

-30-

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 12, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT FINANCIAL MODERNIZATION BILL SIGNING

Presidential Hall
1:37 P.M. EST


THE PRESIDENT: Thank you and good afternoon. I thank you all for coming to the formal ratification of a truly historic event -- Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes have actually agreed on an important issue. (Laughter.) Stay right there, John. (Laughter.) I asked Phil on the way out how bad it's going to hurt him in Texas to be walking out the door with me. (Laughter.) We decided it was all right today.

Like all those before me, I want to express my gratitude to those principally responsible for the success of this legislation. I thank Secretary Summers and the entire team at Treasury, but especially Under Secretary Gensler, for their work, and Assistant Secretary Linda Robertson. I thank you, Chairman Greenspan, for your constant advocacy of the modernization of our financial system. I thank you, Chairman Levitt, for your continuing concern for investor protections. And I thank the other regulators who are here.

I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach and Congressman LaFalce, and all the members of Congress who are here. Senator Dodd told me the Sisyphus story, too, over and over again, but I've rolled so many rocks up so many hills, I had a hard time fully appreciating the significance of it. (Laughter.)

I do want to thank all the members here and all those who aren't here. And I'd like to thank two New Yorkers who aren't here who have been mentioned -- former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, who worked very hard on this; and former Chairman, Senator Al D'Amato, who talked to me about this often. So this is a day we can celebrate as an American day.

To try to give some meaning to the comments that the previous speakers have made about how we're making a fundamental and historic change in the way we operate our financial institutions, I think it might be worth pointing out that this morning we got some new evidence on the role of new technologies in our economy, which showed that over the past four years, productivity has increased by a truly remarkable 2.6 percent -- that's about twice the rate of productivity growth the United States experienced in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the last quarter alone, productivity grew at 4.2 percent.

This is not just some aloof statistic that matters only to the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street economists. It is the key to rising paychecks and greater security and opportunity for ordinary Americans. And the combination of rising productivity, more open borders and trade, working to keep down inflation, the dramatic reduction of the deficit and the accumulation of the surplus, and the continued commitment to the investment in the American people, research and development, and new productivity-inducing technologies has given us the most sustained real wage growth in more than two decades, with the lowest inflation in more than three decades.

I can tell you that back in December of 1992, when we were sitting around the table at the Governor's Mansion, trying to decide what had to be in this economic program, the economists that I had there, who are normally thought to be -- you know, you say, well, they're Democrats, they'll be more optimistic -- none of them believed that we could grow the economy for this long with an unemployment rate this low and an inflation rate this low. And it's a real tribute to the American people.

So what you see here, I think, is the most important recent example of our efforts here in Washington to maximize the possibilities of the new information age global economy, while preserving our responsibilities to protect ordinary citizens and to build one nation here. And there will always be competing interests. You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other.

It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.

Now we have to figure out, well, what are still the individual and family and business equities that are still involved that need some protections. And the long, and often tortured story of this law can be seen as a very stunning specific example of the general challenge that will face lawmakers of both parties, that will face liberals and conservatives, that will face all Americans as we try to make sure that the 21st century economy really works for our country and works for the people who live in it.

So I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves, including being proud of your differences and how you tried to reconcile them. Over the past seven years, we've tried to modernize the economy; and today what we're doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated walls and granting banks significant new authority.

This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition. It will also protect the rights of consumers. It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs of underserved communities -- something that the Vice President and I tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the community development financial institutions, but something which has been largely done through the private sector and honoring the Community Reinvestment Act.

The legislation I signed today establishes the principles that as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that act. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the law, we must first show a satisfactory record of meeting the needs of all the communities the financial institution serves.

I want to thank Senator Sarbanes and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on the CRA issue. I want to applaud literally hundreds of dedicated community groups all around our country that work so hard to make sure the CRA brings more hope and capital to hard-pressed areas.

The bill I signed today also does, as Congressman Leach says, take significant steps to protect the privacy of our financial transactions. It will give consumers, for the very first time, the right to know if their financial institution intends to share their financial data, and the right to stop private information from being shared with outside institutions.

Like the new medical privacy protections I announced two weeks ago, these financial privacy protections have teeth. We granted regulators full enforcement authority and created new penalties to punish abusive practices. But as others have said here, I do not believe that the privacy protections go far enough. I am pleased the act actually instructs the Treasury to study privacy practices in the financial services industry, and to recommend further legislative steps. Today, I'm directing the National Economic Council to work with Treasury and OMB to complete that study and give us a legislative proposal which the Congress can consider next year.

Without restraining the economic potential of new business arrangements, I want to make sure every family has meaningful choices about how their personal information will be shared within corporate conglomerates. We can't allow new opportunities to erode old and fundamental rights.

Despite this concern, I want to say again, this legislation is truly historic. And it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation -- when we understand we may not be able to agree on everything, but we can reconcile our differences once we know what the larger issue is -- how to maximize the opportunities of the American people in a global information age, and still preserve our sense of community and protection for individual rights.

In that same spirit, I hope we will soon complete work on the budget. I hope we will complete work on the Work Incentives Improvement Act, to allow disabled people to go to work -- and I know Senator Gramm has been working with Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords and Senator Moynihan and Senator Kennedy on that.

There are a lot of things we can do once we recognize we're dealing with a big issue over which we ought to have some disagreements, but where we can come together in constructive and honorable compromise to keep pushing our country into the possibilities of the future.

This is a very good day for the United States. Again, I thank all of you for making sure that we have done right by the American people and that we have increased the chances of making the next century an American century. I hope we can continue to focus on the economy and the big questions we will have to deal with revolving around that. I hope we will continue to pay down our debt. I still believe in a global economy. We will maximize the opportunities created by this law if the government is reducing its debt and its claim on available capital. So I hope very much that that will be part of our strategy in the future.

But today we prove that we could deal with the large issue facing our country and every other advanced economy in the world. If we keep dealing with it in other contexts, the future of our children will be very bright, indeed.

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask all the members of Congress to come up here while we sign the bill. Thank you. (Applause.)



President Clinton Signs Repeal of Glass-Steagall
The Wall Street sharks had a lot to laugh and applaud about.


Here's how the Senators voted on the final bill that President Clinton signed into law.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 354 Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 8
Present 1
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---90
Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
McCain (R-AZ)

Ahhhhh .... Bi-partisanship at its finest led by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Those were the days! And those days are now back with President Obama!








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
some guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. My K & R brings you up to < still 0 >
Nice post. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. That was not the vote on glass steagall. In any case, Krugman
is still singing Clinton's praises:

<...>

I mean, supply-side economics should have been killed by the Clinton years: he raised taxes on the rich, everyone on the right predicted catastrophe, and what followed was 8 years of rapid growth and surging revenues, with the budget actually moving into surplus for the first time in three decades. But no: the right interpreted all the good stuff as a lagged effect of the 1981 tax cut (which meant that LBJ deserved credit for Morning in America, but who’s counting?)

<...>


Also, this was the vote on the bill: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Forget Krugman, what do **you** say about glass steagall?
Edited on Thu Dec-16-10 04:04 PM by me b zola
Do you think that it was necessary? Do you think that it was okay to do away with? What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I'm noticing misdirection and misinformation
which saddens me........ That now its just a place in a living room that means anything
which someone might think about all day and spend their day and not get paid.

Never mind that river in Egypt.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. I predict a cacophany of crickets.
Please. Prove me wrong on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Amazing, huh?
And yeah, I too would love for the poster to answer the question. Most of us have been around long enough to remember fighting together against bush* and the gop. Perhaps this is what makes me the saddest, arguing with people that I truly believe hate the things that they are now arguing for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. It was rendered toothless in 1980
By the Monetary Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Rec'd. My parents, both staunch Democrats, were so angry when he did that. Rec'd n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton is not your friend.......
Maybe he used to be... but a cigar lost us that election.
Who knows?......... On purpose?

What a brilliant MAN...... Who has done dumb shit........ but I think not

Now, look at his up bring. and his conservative Arkansas homey bullshit.

I DID NOT INHALE......... wtf was that?

A LIar

A liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. And yet, so many DUers have suddenly fallen in love with the Clintons.
It's baffling, ain't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCheese Donating Member (897 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Democrats are voting for tax cuts for the wealthy.
They're also blaming Clinton for an economic collapse that happened eight years after he left office.

What's next--are we going to take responsibility for 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
37. All your point acknowledges is that it.....
...took Bill and his fucking Wall Street bankster buddies 8 years to loot and rob us to the point where the economy finally collapsed. And there is blood all over Bill Clinton's hands on this, so don't try to weasel him out of it like he was some kind of fucking innocent bystander. Some of us are old enough to remember EXACTLY how this went down and I for one won't forget the shit he's responsible for. Glass-Stegall being most prominent in opening the gates for the barbarians to loot the vaults. And so Bill Clinton can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned. He more than any other Democrat raised this Repuke-Lite persona to where it is now with his fucking DLC.

- I hope I was clear enough......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Stalwart71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
49. Exact!! And after he ignored the genocide in Rwanda. Admittedly he has
apologized for it NOW, but so many Democrats are acting as if the Clintons as some god.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion about DADT, outsourcing and derivatives if it weren't for Clinton's policies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Strong recommend -- this is an outstanding historical example
Of how the democratic party morphed into a party
That adopted Reagan/Thatcher for their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. We are now entering Stage 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-16-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. Big K&R!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
13. I recall Clinton being faced with a VETO-PROOF bill that he DID NOT create.
Faced with it passing with or without him, I'd say he'd be better off signing it early and watch what they do with it for the time he had left.

Either way, it was to become law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Clinton did not merely sign those deregulation bills. He campaigned hard for both of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
50. Ooo, hard. And, so I should not blame the APRIL 2004 deregulation...
Just months before Bush re-selection, Bush appointees deregulated the top five banks so they could legally do what they had at that point been doing already.

But, it couldn't be that.

It must have been the Dem.

Well, I say no. This is a bunch of anti-Dem bull dung.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. This is totally misleading.
Edited on Fri Dec-17-10 10:34 AM by olegramps
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was firmly opposed by the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate until the Republicans agreed to add the Community Reinvestment Act and some provisions for privacy in regard to medical records, etc. This primarily outlawed Red-Lining in predominately Black and minority neighborhoods.

The Republicans are set to shove this up the Democrats ass when they take over congress next year. They will blame the collapse sole on providing mortgages to minorities as the reason for the collapse. It should also be noted that when this arrangement was made the bill was veto-proof when it got to Clinton's desk. It was a damn compromise with the devil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #21
51. This? Repubs rely on anti-Dem BS stories like the OP here.
Omit what happened in 2004, only writing about what happened in elsewhere and you get effective anti-Dem stories. Oh, and your money disappears into the hands of the people who own our media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. Yeah right.
Like he didn't support the repeal of Glass-Stegall???? And no, we'll never know what would have happened had he vetoed the bill, now will we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
52. Yeah right, back at you.
We'll never know what would have happened without attempting to exonerate banks for loaning using other loans as backing from the Bush admin 2004 decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I see you speak fluent Gobbledygook. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
14. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
15. Clinton Only Partly
to blame. It was a mistake, shouldn't have happened. But once the country was hit over the head with what a massive mistake it was, it could have been fixed. It could still be fixed. Clinton started it, but the perpetrators are equally, if not more so, to blame for not acting in the face of disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Plus, while I thought the bill sucked, then and now
20/20 hindsight, and all that. I don't think even the people who were against it had any idea of how much damage it would cause.

Look at how many people of both the left and the right thought we were in a new era, that the basic paradigms of economics had changed. Many were enthralled by the end of the cold war and the run up to y2k with the boom in the tech sector and all.

Again, I thought it was a bad bill at the time, we need to go back to even more stringent financial regulations than we have ever had before, because technology makes it easier and faster to do funny things with money, but, as with the mortgage mess, there is enough blame to go around, left and right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. "even the people who were against it had any idea of how much damage it would cause." Yes we did!

And I can't recall anyone on the "left" who supported those bills or who ever supported the government de-regulation of Wall Street. The "left" has always favored tighter government regulations and controls over Wall Street.


Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), one of seven Senate Democrats who voted against revoking Glass-Steagall, said in 1999:

“I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010. I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness."

Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who also voted against repeal said:

“…determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes. Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. You mean Obama, et al.?
Yep, they definitely dropped the ball...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
16. Thanks for posting the truth.
If people voted more of us New Deal Democrats rather than "New Democrats", things like this would not happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chimichurri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
17. Clinton also deregulated the media wth the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Edited on Fri Dec-17-10 09:10 AM by Chimichurri
which did to the media what dismantling Glass-Steagall did for banks. You can thank him for handing power over to the right wing noise machine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. Don't forget NAFTA. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chimichurri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Bernie Sanders would call it Naftah Disastah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
19. Pathetic.........
in a couple of years we will see Bush, Clinton, and Obama commercials. The three amigos!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
24. K&R This is the kind of historically damaging
Edited on Fri Dec-17-10 11:35 AM by Enthusiast
legislation we get when a Democratic President acts like a Republican.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sasha031 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Haunting peek into the a devasting future
Edited on Fri Dec-17-10 12:58 PM by sasha031
The real Democrats (Bryan Dorgan) verses the DLC

Thank you for that piece of history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
26. Better just to blame everything on the Repubs - knr nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R
I was going to post this article... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. Recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
33. A reminder that
not only are so many of our present democrats in office either spineless or corrupt, but they were no better during Clinton's time. Indeed, Clinton and Obama themselves are complicit in this Country's moronic steal from the poor to give to the rich policies. Grand. Couldn't we just ship them all off to Afghanistan and put someone useful in charge? No, I suppose not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
35. And O is going to continue the farce --
:applause: Bravo, Mr. President. The Ruling Elite will be so proud of you and very grateful. (coughcampaigndonationscough) :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tropicanarose Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. Sickening!
Why should I bother voting for a Democratic candidate anymore?

I love Bill Clinton but this clearly was a policy that hurt us deeply. Do we never learn?

Obama didn't even try to negotiate the terms of this.......how can they justify adding 90BILLION to the deficit in order to preserve tax cuts for the super rich and make the poor even more destitute.

I am beyond angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. ....
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John Quincy Adams
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
47. well, actually NAFTA was Poppy's baby and was a media
talking point even before the elections. Of course, Clinton is just like one of Poppy's sons. I mean his son moved NAFTA forward and swept away the BCCI Iran Contra affair. Only a loving son would do such a thing for dear old dad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
40. By the time Glass Steagall was repealed, it had already been completely neutered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act">The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 rendered Glass-Steagall toothless.

The Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall was the final nail in the coffin.

By the time Glass-Steagall was repealed, it had been completely neutered. Getting rid of it was a formality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Yeah I've heard that.....
...half-baked argument before. Not true, although I'm sure a lot of Repukes and DLCers want it to be. Unless you believe mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations had absolutely nothing to do with the economic collapse we're now experiencing.

Events following repeal

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.<15> Elizabeth Warren,<16> author and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009.<17> <18>

The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. This correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation however, as there are several other significant events that have impacted the sub-prime market during that time. These include the adoption of mark-to-market accounting, implementation of the Basel Accords and the rise of adjustable rate mortgages.<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Events_following_repeal">link



- Hell, even http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/president-clinton-i-was-wrong-listen">Slick Willie admits it was a huge mistake. He blames it on listening to Rubin and Summers. I don't understand why anyone would still be trying to defend it.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xolodno Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
43. The only thing that surprised me when....
...Glass-Steagal was repealed and the sham legislation replaced it was, how the economy collapsed so quickly. I gave it 15-20 years before hell fire reigned down. 10 years was a very pessimistic (as I and other soon to be graduates of economics thought), but shit dude, technically speaking, it was under ten years.

Even if it was veto proof majority, Clinton should have done so on principle, if he had, his credibility would have been monstrous. The fact that Wall Street still wants things "as they were" basically states they will make their money and then vacate the company (and maybe country) to a nice villa in the Caribbean or South Pacific, while the new guy takes the hit.

Another thing that amazes me when I argue with...well let me just go ahead and state it...bafoons who argue against Keynesian economics....they act like its the spectre of communism and its coming back....and yet, Keynesian economics was abandoned 30 years ago and ever since Monetarism has been in place....things have only gotten worse with boom and bust cycles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. "The only thing that surprised me when....
...Glass-Steagal was repealed and the sham legislation replaced it was, how the economy collapsed so quickly."

You shouldn't have been surprised because we're Americans. We have that "can-do" spirit!

- Even when it's our own un-doing........

It ain't robbery, it's a business cycle

Capitalism is about one thing: aggregating the surplus productive value of the public for private interests. As we have said, it is about creating state sanctioned "investments" for the workers who produce the real wealth. Things like home "ownership" and mortgages, or stock investments and funds to absorb their retirement savings. That crushing 30-year mortgage with two refis is an investment. So is that 401K melting like a snow cone at the beach.

As the people's wealth accumulates, it is steadily siphoned off by government and elite private forces. From time to time, it is openly plundered for their benefit by way of various bubbles, depressions or recessions and other forms of theft passed off as unavoidable acts of nature/god. These periodic raids and draw downs of the people's wealth are attributed to "business cycles." Past periodic raids and thefts are heralded as being proof of the rationale. "See folks, it comes and goes, so it's a cycle!" Economic raids and busts become "market adjustments."

Public blackmail and plundering through bailouts become "necessary rescue packages." Giveaways to corporations under the guise of public works and creating employment become "stimulus." The chief responsibility of economists is to name things in accordance with government and corporate interests. The function of the public is to acquire debt and maintain "consumer confidence." When the public staggers to its feet again and manages to carry more debt, buy more poker chips on credit to play again, it's called a recovery. They are back in the game.

~ http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html">Joe Bageant, "Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
44. Naturally Sen. Feingold had the foresight not to vote to remove the
over-site from these tapeworms....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRH Donating Member (671 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
45. Thank You BBI, Incredible post, you nailed it. ...
Few posts I respond to before I read the entire post and thread. This one excepts. The present crisis is ten times as deep as was possible before the DEMOCRATS aided and abetted the repeal of Glass Steagall; Didn't take long for Bush and the wet pant dreams of republican financial wisdom to shove that mishap home, dark and dirty. The long incestuous arm of investment banking in the pants of the entire insurance and banking system using mortgages as a vehicle to MBS and eventually CDS their way to total masturbation of principle, in pursuit of profit. Hell! What could go wrong???

Everything not borne of good financial foundation, in practice, sank in the sand, or rather into the middle class's fractured dreams . And here we are.

Thank You new dems for the southern solution, to previous democrat losses in the face of right wing corruption, not prosecuted.

Have to leave now, before I rant. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
46. Seeing Erskine "Mr. NAFTA" Bowles on the Fiscal Responsibility Panel
made me want to punch someone.

Mr. NAFTA helped GUT this country and here is 15 years later laying out a framework to try to keep the country solvent? Gimme a fucking break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-17-10 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
48. Bubba is dah man!! He told 'em and sold 'em just how to get r done!!!
Man, it was great seeing him in action again!
That is truly one hellova President!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
53. ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC