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

[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...

[vaberella]

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.

[SunsetDreams]

2. done ty

Bills are never perfect when they are first written. Bills change with time, and circumstances.

[vaberella]

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.

[SunsetDreams]

4. yeah if that logic was applied

NO PROGESS would ever be made in Congress, change happens gradually, not over night.

[Tarheel_Dem]

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.

[SunsetDreams]

6. They can always be improved, even against Wall Street.

[TheKentuckian]

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.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

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.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

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.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Speaking of "blustering and blowing"...

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.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

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!!!

Oh, great post by the way, and your use of Dave and Busters was inspired. But it just brought back some serious memories.

[SunsetDreams]

22. I've never

been to Dave and Busters. Do they have good food?

[Number23]

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.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. I can only imagine the deleted responses. But, +10000.

[Robb]

14. Easy there, hoss.

[SunsetDreams]

18. Is hoss

acting up again?

[vaberella]

7. However tell that to some people here and you have nothing.

Note the lack of response to this news.

[Phx_Dem]

16. Excellent point. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

17. yes it is a great example

[depakid]

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.

[slipslidingaway]

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.

[niceypoo]

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.