Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Imagine voting against Glass-Steagall because it only established a temporary FDIC

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: Presidency Donate to DU
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 02:54 AM
Original message
Imagine voting against Glass-Steagall because it only established a temporary FDIC
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 03:16 AM by SunsetDreams
Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.

Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-797, 64 STAT. 873).
Revised and consolidated earlier FDIC legislation into one Act. Embodied the basic authority for the operation of the FDIC.

Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.
Link: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/important/index.ht...


Also linked to another DUers individual post, not OP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. You should link this to Prosense's post. However I agreed when s/he posted it.
It was on point then and now. There are to many double standards as though all original bills were perfect then. However the key point was that they made significant change then and will do so in future. This is why I don't waste my time with the Kucinich's (who's backed down in the past) and Feingold's of the world. It's utter grandstanding on their part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. done ty
Bills are never perfect when they are first written. Bills change with time, and circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Exactly. Hence why I don't get the people expecting perfection.
There are massive good in this bill and there are loopholes currently being fixed and yet there are so many people here who are supporting Feingold to basically dump this. It's ludicrous---and I love how they tout Glass-Steagall as the best thing ever when in actuality it seem as though it was not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. yeah if that logic was applied
NO PROGESS would ever be made in Congress, change happens gradually, not over night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well I guess that puts an end to the lie that bills can't be improved upon once signed.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of our little community. Good job. Incrementalism sucks. All or nothing rules. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They can always be improved, even against Wall Street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The basic structures have to be in place to be improved. If the shit isn't there to build upon
in the first place then improving means a whole new effort.

You cannot just pass any old thing, claim it will be improved later, and declare victory.

Stop pretending to be such legislative historians if you don't have the very basic understanding of the footholds put into past bills that allowed them to be beefed up, temporary measures that could be expanded upon, sound basic structures that excluded some that only needed to have exclusions dropped, and so on.

Improvements require some basis to build from and that requires more groundwork than any random bill labeled in area supposedly being addressed.

You cannot boost horsepower when you failed to include an engine of any sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Do you have any basis for this comment whatsoever?
The fact of the matter is, once they start writing fixes, anything goes. There does not need to be an existing "structure" to change - you just pulled that out of your ass because the example cited a temporary FDIC. I suggest you learn the process yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Social Security, civil rights, Medicare are all excellent examples of underlying structures
being put into place and then being expanded on with the passage of time.

My incrementalism certainly requires a foundation be laid, walls put up, and a roof over the head and then getting the wiring and plumbing put in, putting flooring down, hanging the ceiling, and doing the finish work like drywall and trim and picking out the appliances.
Later it is possible or even expected that rooms might need to be added on. Sometimes, even another story, a garage, and some landscaping needs to be done.

Drapes are far from my thinking but yeah you need to build a structure or you have no shelter and nothing worth future investment. It seems fine by you if the property isn't even purchased, just pitch a lean to any old place and call it home.

I certainly don't need or seek your approval and I don't need any poli sci credits, not that you seem like you'd have any to give.

I get the distinct impression that understanding your point (whatever that may be, seems to drift quite a bit) isn't good enough by a longshot, the point is that I agree or sit silent while a completely nonsensical meme is spouted like fact.

Bluster and blow all you like but you've got no case. No one does and as such there is no need to dig for old papers or compose new ones to counter whole cloth nonsense.
Now if you want to settle down and discuss what types of structures must be established to foster an initiative that can be built on over time with a reasonable chance of sustained success and which are ancillary or the overall merits of an incremental approach at all, that will probably be productive and hopefully generally edifying but otherwise zark off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Speaking of "blustering and blowing"...
Edited on Wed Jun-30-10 10:48 AM by Nicholas D Wolfwood
I see you've found your thesaurus after being called out on doing nothing but cursing. Are you trying to further prove yourself to be arrogant?

I will indeed "zark off" - it's useless getting into this conversation with you. You've got an ill-informed, entrenched point of view which you very well claim to have mountains of evidence to support yet provide not one scrap even upon being asked for it. And I'm not entirely sure where one might get poli sci "credits" - that sounds like something you won playing skee-ball at Dave and Busters - but really, that's not the pissing contest you want to enter. I assure you of that.

On edit: The examples you cite are not matching what your claims are - Those examples were all lot closer to a vacant lot when it was first passed than the full fledged house you describe. But beyond that, you're saying it's impossible to improve on something unless you have a "sufficient" foundation - which you still don't really describe, nor do you support with any kind of evidence whatsoever. Considering how laws are concepts and not buildings, every law that has ever been written has been built upon hugely varying degrees of "foundations". They all start with nothing, which really, would seem to nullify your point entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Oh my God!! Dave and Busters!!!
I haven't been there or even heard that name in soooo long! You are making me soo homesick right now!!! :cry: :cry:

Oh, great post by the way, and your use of Dave and Busters was inspired. But it just brought back some serious memories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I've never
been to Dave and Busters. Do they have good food?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. The food's not too shabby. But it's the games that really make it a treat
Imagine a Chuck E. Cheese for grown folks. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. I can only imagine the deleted responses. But, +10000.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Easy there, hoss.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Is hoss
acting up again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. However tell that to some people here and you have nothing.
Note the lack of response to this news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. Excellent point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunsetDreams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. yes it is a great example
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. The extend to which people will twist and turn in their apologetics really is impressive
I think everyone recognizes that this legislation is a travesty- and that if it's passed, the issue won't be revisited until the next crash- which the Democrats will own own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Which the Dems will own! ...
the next bubble is never the same as the last. So I see protections being put into place for a bubble that will probably not repeat itself anytime soon, while 6 banks control over half of our GDP.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Johnson rammed Medicare through in six months
By using the bully pulpit. Once upon a time Democrats had balls. Those days are no more.
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 Thu Apr 24th 2014, 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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