Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blame The Meltdown On The Repeal Of Glass-Steagall Act

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 05:27 PM
Original message
Blame The Meltdown On The Repeal Of Glass-Steagall Act
Blame The Subprime Meltdown On The
Repeal Of Glass-Steagall
The Consumerist
April 17, 2008

A lot of blame has sloshed around for the sub-prime meltdown, from greedy borrowers to greedy mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan, but if you want the real culprit, it was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act. On November 12, 1999, the champagne must have been shooting from the walls at Citigroup, which had worked behind the scenes for over 30 years to get the act overturned. After recovering from their hangover, they and their banking buddies went on a sub-prime lending orgy. But what was Glass-Steagall and how did it use to protect us?

Glass-Steagall was passed under the Roosevelt administration in 1933 in direct response to the Wall Street shenanigans that ushered in the Great Depression where banks shoved their own depositors into buying the stocks the banks were dealing. The basic idea was to keep banks from speculating with the savings that American citizens were entrusting within their vaults.

Now, on the one side they could sell mortgages to homeowners, and then invent fancy investment structures which they sold on Wall Street. Because they were "covered" on both ends, banks felt free to sell increasingly dicey mortgages, just so long as another sucker was picking up the garbage. This sucker was picking it up because he had a plan to repackage it and sell it to another sucker, and so on. Eventually we end up with no-doc stated income interest-only option-ARM no money down mortgages being repackaged as "sound investments" being sold as "stable assets" for city pension plans to park their money in. (See "Subprime Meltdown As Told By Stick Figures").

We can only imagine the level of machination exerted over those 30 years, but we do know this. Robert Rubin was Secretary of Treasury, which had oversight over Glass-Steagall regulation. Days before he resigned, Glass-Steagall was repealed. Just over a year later, he became chairman of the Citi executive committee, with an annual compensation of $40 million, a position he still holds, despite Citigroup's $24 billion in subprime-related losses.

Please read the entire article at:

http://consumerist.com/381032/blame-the-subprime-meltdo...

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

Repeal of the Act

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s.

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, 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. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors . They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

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

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)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

---------------------------------------
Statements in support of bill that repealed of Glass-Steagall Act



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



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adamuu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. K*R
agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Glass Steagall repeal, Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform....
Bank crisis, media consolidation, growing gap between rich and poor.

Those were the days, eh?

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. Before on DU it was listed differently, much differently.
I'm certain there was some mistake, which certainly is mine for not checking further.

It listed only one Dem voting for it: Hollings D-SC.

And, thus Clinton was blamed for its passage because he signed it, and there was no notion that it would have been veto proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That's my mistake. I listed the original bill passed by the Senate
Edited on Tue Sep-30-08 06:36 PM by RufusTFirefly
Roll call here

The vote was more lopsided after the bill came out of committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. So, the vote that made it law was veto proof. Thus BC signed it.
Thank you for the update Rufus. I miss that series, Firefly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. You are quite correct, Chicolini. The damage was done by the time it reached Bill's desk.
Now go! And never darken my towels again!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
30. Clinton could have came out against the bill verbally.
Instead he praised it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. Or he could have let it pass into law without a signature.
Why doesn't anybody do that anymore?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. That repeal was just another symptom of the disease
When you have toxic bacteria all over your body, is it correct to say that liver failure is what killed you? Or is it the bacteria itself that was the problem?

Corrupt lobbyist government, trickle down bullshit, stagnant wages, earning gap, skyrocketing costs of healthcare, transportation, etc.

Chicago style economics and our lobbyist run government are the problem. Glass Steagal act being gutted was just a symptom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhpgetsit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. We need to get people talking about this!
Of course DUers are pretty familiar with the issue but I want it on TV in the MSM! The fact that it was brought to us by Phil Gramm is quite a liability for McCain!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. But Most Democratic Senators Joined Republicans And Voted For Deregulation ....
and that's why you won't read much about it in any media.

Neither the Republican or Democratic party leadership can point to this vote in an election year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
8. Who are you going to trust?
Boxer (D-CA)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)

Wellstone (D-MN) (miss you, Paul!)

If Franklin Roosevelt attended a Democratic Party Caucus today, he would think he stumbled into the Republican meeting room.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. You missed these two No votes!

Bryan (D-NV)
Shelby (R-AL)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Bryan is no longer in the Senate, and
Shelby is a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Shelby is a Republican with a certain Economic Populist streak.
He seems to be something of a throw-back to William Jennings Bryant, who really had no use for the banks.

I ran into people like him when I worked in East Texas for a year. Railroads and banks were Public Enemy #1 with a lot of older people there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R for vital background info !! //n
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. that is the direct cause
indirectly 25 years of trickle down economics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
16. Slimy rat bastard McCain not voting, so he couldn't be pinned down later!
The creep KNEW exactly how bad this was going to be for America, so he was totally covering his ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironflange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. Come on, get serious
It was his nap time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #16
41. gee, who does THAT sound like ? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDsweetpea Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. I heard Bill Clinton speaking about this last week on
either The View or Larry King. He said many have said this crash was his fault because he signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, so he sat down and reviewed everything and he feels what he did had little to no effect on this mess. He also said the Repubs just like to blame him for everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. ya, just like the blue dress was Monika's fault. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. I disagree
This crisis was caused by underwriting standards for mortgages being drastically relaxed over the past dozen years by Fannie Mae. Bad mortgages and inflated property values are at the core of the current crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDsweetpea Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I heard on MSN that Walter Cummo wrote the rules
for the dereg of Freddie Mac when he was their chairman in 1991. You know, the man McC wants to make sec. of the treasury because he did "an amazing job" at Freddie Mac.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-30-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. It wasn't one person
The underwriting standards were relaxed over a period of 15-20 years, getting more and more lenient each year
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irish Girl Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
22. k & r -- great compilation
This coupled with Greenspan opening the cheap credit floodgates are exactly what caused this hellish nightmare. Thanks for compiling this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
23. one of the many things that Clinton did that I detest him for, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cstanleytech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. There were 90 votes saying Yea against 8 Nays.
That means if he had vetoed it that it would have passed regardless because there were more then enough senators voting for it to override a veto so its kinda silly to try to blame Clinton for signing it at all.
You want to blame someone then blame all the senators both republican and democrat who voted Yea, those are the ones who truly deserve the blame here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. good point and the point is well taken, thanks :-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 05:31 AM
Response to Original message
26. No, Bush is more to blame. He PREVENTED states from stopping illegal mortgage practices.
Bush did not just fail to monitor and regulate the financial market. He twisted an old Civil War law to keep states from regulating the banking industry.

Had Gore been president, the SEC would have been able to keep its foot on the neck of the banking industry. Crimes would have been prosecuted and the regulations would have been re introduced when it was clear that the market would not police itself.

The SEC was supposed to be the fail safe. Bush gutted the SEC. All those Dems in the Senate would have voted differently if they had known what was to come under Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #26
37. Exactly right!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
27. This Thread is GOP Propaganda (nicely worded) to shift blame to Dems
when 90% of it rests on the Bush administration, greedy bankers and Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. Nonsense: Only One Republican Senator Voted Against The Repeal
And you think they want the general public to know that only 1 Republican Senator voted against the deregulation which led to this economic crisis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. See post #26.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. Completely without foundation
The repeal of Glass-Steagall occurred in 3 phases, 2 during the Reagan years and one during the Clinton years. The one that occurred during the Clinton years was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. It was veto-proof legislation rammed down our throats by Republicans in one of the most partisan and polarizing of votes.

This deregulation really is at the root of the problem. And frankly, even if the blame did rest with the Dems (which it doesn't), I'd still want to know the truth. I hope you would to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. Read Clinton's Statement
"It was veto-proof legislation rammed down our throats by Republicans in one of the most partisan and polarizing of votes."

It sure was "veto proof" with 91 Senators voting for it!!!

And there really wasn't much chance of Clinton not signing the bill because HE SUPPORTED IT!

HE PRAISED IT!

HE LOVED IT!

He issued a statement in support of the deregulation.

He posed with his high finance friends for a signing photo-op!

What more do you fricken want?

Now that's the truth. And you can provide the slightest shred of evidence that this was a partisan vote (91-8) vote rammed down the throats of Senate Democrats as you put it, please respond with some hard facts rather than wishful thinking on that vote.

I'm listening!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoUsername Donating Member (265 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
28. Repeal of the bankruptcy bill was the icing on the cake.
So a bank might provide the cash for a bunch of loans, but then get it back, plus a huge commission, when those loans were packaged and sold to someone else.


Lots of people take out mortgages, and housing prices rise. This is used as evidence to convince more people that real estate is a great investment, and more people buy into the housing bubble. Lots of these people put little or no money down, and buy mortgages whose interests rates are going to change for the worse. But they believe the price of their home is inevitably going to go up, and pin their futures on the idea that they can refinance their mortgage before their rate changes. Since the house will be worth more, the mortgage for what they owe should be easier to get; it will represent a smaller percentage of the new total cost of the house.


Of course, this was dumb. Banks didn’t really care (because they weren’t holding the bad paper) but the people investing in those “mortgage-backed securities” were slowly getting wise to the fact that many of the borrowers were in over their heads. What to do? The credit industry went ahead and lobbied Washington to change the bankruptcy laws. While corporations could claim bankruptcy and stop paying for their retirees’ health coverage, individuals would no longer be able to claim bankruptcy, and even if they did, they would still owe their creditors the money they borrowed, forever. The credit industry spent over $100 million lobbying lawmakers for the new provisions.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/30/riding-out-the-credi.html#more


IIRC, 18 Dems including Biden voted for that piece of shit legislation. Nice job guys. Thanks for putting another nail in the coffin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
31. glass steagall chronology
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. great info, thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
36. k&r: couldnt agree more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. A Really Good Post
I didn't see your post. Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Thanks, I was so happy to see your thread
I'd really like to see people more interested in the root causes of the current crisis. It is very important to me that we don't just band-aid the symptom and ignore a huge problem that could come back to haunt us later. Allowing this credit market to remain totally unregulated and unchecked is a major oversight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Restore The Depression Era Laws!
That would help a lot .... just bring them up to date so that they cover and perhaps outlaw all forms of speculation such as derivatives, credit default swaps, etc., that have caused this crisis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frickaline Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Well, that goes a little too far for me, but then I'm no economist
I think it would be better to just add rules on trading mortgage loan risk. It used to be hard to get a home loan. It used to be that the original bank really cared about making sure they got their money back on a loan. Allowing derivative hedging against their mortgage loans in a way allows them to be incompetent. Maybe limits on the amount of risk they can hedge would be a nice step. I'd just like to see them a little more beholden to the risk associated with the loans they make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
45. c'mon, let's all run over to the "big dog appreciation" thread nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
46. And where is Obama calling for its reinstation? Why are Dems NOT calling for its reinstation?
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 02:28 PM by Leopolds Ghost
Because they have become TORY neolibs calling for a package of tax cuts and Hoover-like giveaways to Wall St.

The only reason the bill hasn't passed already is House Republicans got too greedy -- and SUCCESSFULLY
asked for more.

More accurate to say Republicans are the party Wall St uses to get power (by propagandizing
an army of right-wing fundamentalists with provincial attitudes to demonize "the left") the
Democrats they are now quite capable of using to -maintain- it.
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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