Politicsreinstateglasssteagallnowstopthecriminalbanksters

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:26 PM

 

St. Hillary of Goldman Sachs OPPOSED to New Glass-Steagall Bank Bill??

Hours after Hillary Clinton vowed to crack down on Wall Street, an adviser said she has no plans to push a bank break-up bill beloved by the left.

Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve official now advising the Clinton campaign, told Reuters Monday that she has no plans to push for the return of a banking law that separates commercial and investment banks.

Liberals frequently argue that the Glass-Steagall Act, whose repeal was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, would have helped minimize the damage of the last financial crisis. But Blinder, who worked in the Clinton White House as well, said that is not in the cards for Hillary Clinton.
“You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” he said, adding that he had spoken directly to Clinton about the issue.

That law separated traditional banking activity from riskier investment banking, and its proponents argue it if it had stayed in place, the fallout from the last financial crisis would have been much less severe.

Liberal critics of Wall Street frequently call for a return to that firewall, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) proposed its reinstatement earlier this month.
<snip>

read more here

74 replies, 5023 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply St. Hillary of Goldman Sachs OPPOSED to New Glass-Steagall Bank Bill?? (Original post)
FORD Jul 2015 OP
toast-chef Jul 2015 #1
Dexter Morgan Jul 2015 #2
nolens volens Jul 2015 #4
Lefty Jul 2015 #13
Carlos W Bush Jul 2015 #28
nolens volens Jul 2015 #3
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #6
FORD Jul 2015 #10
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #11
FORD Jul 2015 #12
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #14
Dexter Morgan Jul 2015 #19
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #22
nolens volens Jul 2015 #18
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #29
FORD Jul 2015 #8
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #5
Dexter Morgan Jul 2015 #7
toast-chef Jul 2015 #15
Dexter Morgan Jul 2015 #20
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #31
FORD Jul 2015 #16
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #21
exindy Jul 2015 #24
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #25
exindy Jul 2015 #27
Satanica Jul 2015 #9
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #17
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #50
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #51
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #56
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #57
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #58
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #59
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #61
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #62
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #64
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #65
exindy Jul 2015 #67
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #68
exindy Jul 2015 #69
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #70
exindy Jul 2015 #71
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #72
Ms.Eloriel Jul 2015 #73
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #74
Supercalifragilistic Jul 2015 #60
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #23
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #26
FORD Jul 2015 #30
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #34
FORD Jul 2015 #37
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #38
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #32
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #33
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #35
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #36
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #40
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #41
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #43
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #45
moneyshot Jul 2015 #39
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #42
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #44
FORD Jul 2015 #46
moneyshot Jul 2015 #47
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #49
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #48
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #52
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #53
Attila Gorilla Jul 2015 #54
Gr8Daze Jul 2015 #55
orson Jul 2015 #63
FORD Jul 2015 #66

Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:29 PM

1. Did anyone really believe The Holy One

would do anything like Glass-Steagull. She knows which side her bread is buttered on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:30 PM

2. When Graham gets off the phone with Thom Hartmann i am sure he will be along to explain

why this is good news for the American people..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:38 PM

4. Of course

it will be relatively unintelligible and replete with a plethora of non-sequiturs....


such is the nature of defending the indefensible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:50 PM

13. Nailed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:35 PM

28. Something about Alito and Sotomayer I predict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:36 PM

3. Shocker

that the corporate shill HRC won't actually reign in corporate masters....the guy we have at 1600 PA avenue famously called out for hope and change in 2008...once at the WH it was clear that hoping for some change was about all we were getting beyond the ACA...corporatist candidates reveal their true nature when they get to the WH, some before hand to be certain but others are more clever.

HRC is not that clever and she's been clearly been beholden to corporate masters for sometime.

Nothing new here sadly Ford, but we can hope someone will break that bond and actually represent the electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:40 PM

6. Give me a concrete example of something she has done that makes her a coporate shill

If you can come up with something you'll be the first HRC basher that has managed to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:45 PM

10. Her daughter's "marriage"

 

to a second generation Goldman Sachs felon.

Not to mention the Social Security PRIVATIZATION scam that I mentioned last night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:47 PM

11. Her daughter's marriage? LMAO!

Did you want an arranged marriage instead? Women shouldn't be able to marry whomever they want to marry?

And again, Hillary has NEVER proposed privatization of social security, which is why you couldn't find a link to back up that claim last night. Remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:49 PM

12. This WAS an arranged marriage.

 

Much like the old Feudal times when a king would marry one of his daughters off to the son of a king in a neighboring country. Not all that surprising given the fact that Hillary and her fellow corporatists are trying to return the world to Feudalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:51 PM

14. LMAO - it was?

Okay, got a link to that? Or no, like your SS privatization crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:54 PM

19. Her marriage was arranged,politics and Wall st joining together...

In a few years Chelsea will be running for something with the backing of Wall st and the big bankers.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:11 PM

22. Boy, you folks come up with some pretty nutty stuff

No, her marriage was not arranged. SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:53 PM

18. I suppose

you won't consider the 45 times she pressed for the TPP while Secretary of State to be indicative of supporting a trade deal that's good for corporate America while perhaps not good for middle America, or her unwavering support for the Ex-Im Bank...

Or the fact that she's made it clear that all lawyers should be supporting banks, and she opposes any renewal of the Glass Steagall firewall...

If you believe her a true liberal free from corporate restraint, that's great. You continue to press for her nomination as is your right.

But just as you won't believe she's a shill others won't believe she isn't.

Enjoy the evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:37 PM

29. She helped author the TPP.

Of course any example given will be laughed off and pooh-poohed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolens volens (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:43 PM

8. Which is why we have to elect Bernie

 

Nothing but corporatists on either side of the aisle, in the current list of candidates. Bernie is our last chance at reversing the fucked up policies of the last 35 years. Another 4/8 years of this - whether Hillary, or anybody in the Republican clown car, and so much additional damage could be done that it might be past the point of no return.

SHAFTA... war with Iran (or basically World War III, because it would definitely turn into that).... more science denial..... more wall street bankster fraud.

Who in their right mind would want more of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:39 PM

5. Oh dude, give it up

Her speech was long on actual, realistic proposals while Bernie is stuck on bitching and pitching pie in the sky bullshit that even he admits will never pass congress.

There is no way in hell any reasonable person can compare her speech today with ANYTHING Bernie has said and conclude she isn't the better candidate.

I know that upsets you. But it is clear she has put her head together with Warren to develop these proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:42 PM

7. Her speech was meaningless platitudes.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:51 PM

15. Hold on to your hats.....

I am agreeing with Dexter.


She will say anything to get votes. I think a woman president would be great. Not that woman. I want a president that is honorable and doesn't swing around like a damn weathervane. At least Sanders is honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toast-chef (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:58 PM

20. If you are agreeing with me it might be time for rehab? As a person i like Sanders he is not a fake

has stayed true to his beliefs...
On the realistic side he does not have a chance and will fracture the democratic party which will leave it clean sailing for a republican to get elected....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dexter Morgan (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:04 PM

31. Hold on to your hats...

I'm agreeing with you as well.

This is far more than what Nader was in 2000. Or what Dean was in 2004. Nader appealed to a small group of people at the time. Dean somehow derailed before breaking big.

This is something much more profound. Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are 90s libertarians who despise liberals and progressives and hitched their wagons to corporations. They're Reagan Democrats. Every real liberal I talk to feels sold out and betrayed.

A line in the sand must be drawn. I agree that Bernie Sanders probably won't win unless an inexplicable wave developes.

At the moment it looks like Elizabeth Warren in 2020 or nothing at all.

I dread what Scott Walker Will do to this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:52 PM

16. Her speech was bullshit, just like Obama's speeches are bullshit.

 

Granted, Barry is one Hell of a speaker. Problem is that what he SAYS, and what he DOES are two entirely different things. Same with Hillary. The rhetoric she's spewing now was lifted directly from Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren, but it does NOT match Hillary's record as DLC corporatist warmongering "centrist"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:03 PM

21. What, specifically, was "bullshit'????

This part:

“Small businesses create more than 60 percent of new American jobs on net. So they have to be a top priority. I’ve said I want to be the small business President, and I mean it. And throughout this campaign I’m going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification.

“I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas.

“And I know it’s not always how we think about this, but another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive immigration reform.

I want you to hear this: Bringing millions of hard-working people into the formal economy would increase our gross domestic product by an estimated $700 billion over 10 years.

“Then there are the new public investments that will help established businesses and entrepreneurs create the next generation of high-paying jobs.

How about this part:

“And really there’s no excuse not to make greater investments in cleaner, renewable energy right now. Our economy obviously runs on energy. And the time has come to make America the world’s clean energy superpower. I advocate that because these investments will create millions of jobs, save us money in the long run, and help us meet the threats of climate change.

“And let’s fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries, just as the project to sequence the human genome did in the 1990s, and President Obama’s initiatives on precision medicine and brain research will do in the coming years.


Or this part:

“It’s time to recognize that quality, affordable childcare is not a luxury – it’s a growth strategy. And it’s way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job — and women of color making even less.

“All this lost money adds up and for some women, it’s thousands of dollars every year.

“Now I am well aware that for far too long, these challenges have been dismissed by some as “women’s issues.”

“Well those days are over.

“Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

As a business owner I really liked this part (don't you wish Bernie would have thought of this)?:

“We’ll help families look forward to retirement by defending and enhancing Social Security and making it easier to save for the future.

“Now many of these proposals are time-tested and more than a little battle-scarred. We need new ideas as well. And one that I believe in and will fight for is profit sharing.

“Hard working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they help produce. So I will propose ways to encourage companies to share profits with their employees.

“That’s good for workers and good for business. Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win.

“Later this week in New Hampshire, I’ll have more to say about how we do this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:24 PM

24. Bullshit cause it is straight from the gop bumper sticker slogans.

"Small businesses create more than 60 percent of new American jobs"

That might be true but the incentive behind the creation of those jobs is a very strong middle class. One which has been devastated by the things like the repeal of Glass-Steagal, artificial fed interest rates, lack of emphasis on anti-trust.

The most important factor in those new jobs being created is a large factory which drives the entire economy of a region. The factory that went away to a large extent by the nafta agreement.

"empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification."

IOW, forget about changes in capital gains taxes unless they are downward. Tax simplification? Individual taxpayers couldn't have it any simpler. It's the dodgers who need the complex loopholes.

"comprehensive immigration reform."

As if that would ever happen. I noticed she didn't do anything about immigration legislation when she had the chance. That goes double for all the congressional gop candidates, too.

"closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas."

Like H1B visas and NAFTA and the TPP? You mean those things? Anyone notice she didn't offer anything other than a little smoke up our ass?

"I want you to hear this: Bringing millions of hard-working people into the formal economy would increase our gross domestic product by an estimated $700 billion over 10 years.

Then there are the new public investments that will help established businesses and entrepreneurs create the next generation of high-paying jobs."

Tada! Like magic pixie dust.... I noticed there aren't any fer instances.

Like the man said...

Bullshit and platitudes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:27 PM

25. Bernie is not throwing pixie dust?

It was definitely much more specific and achievable than anything Sanders has proposed. No contest. Talk about bullshit and platitudes. He is full of those.

You should have watched the speech. I watched Bernie's. At least I listened to both. You clearly have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:30 PM

27. Your pom-pom is making me sneeze.

(afterthought)

Did I mention Bernie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:43 PM

9. Hillary is a corporate suck up

 

Just like the Republican Party

Her stance on this bill is not surprising at all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Satanica (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:52 PM

17. You have to hand it to the right wingers

For the first time in history they have been able to convince the left to take down their own frontrunner and get behind the socialist that they can cream in the general election.

SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:07 PM

50. That's nonsense, as you well know

Our problems with Hlllary are based entirely on HER performance, and not a thing from the right. If anything, rightwing taunts and criticism tend to generate loyalty and enthusiasm, not destroy them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #50)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:46 PM

51. It's absolutely true

And you know how we can tell? Just try asking a liberal extremist to back up any of their HRC bashing with a single fact. Crickets every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:11 PM

56. In that case, absolutely NOT true

Here's a fact or 10 for you to go with MY bashing of Hillary as a Corporotist DLC Dem, NOT a liberal. She gave her big econ speech today (and boy, can she get ANY more stiff and wooden??), and her campaign quickly made mincemeat of it:

Hillary Clinton opposes breaking up the megabanks, opposes reinstating Glass-Steagall

Hint: that's NOT what I and millions of Americans want in our Democratic Presidential candidate. She's making it easy for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #56)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:26 PM

57. So? I guess you buy into the myth that Glas Steagall is the cause of all our woes?

That's a bunch of baloney. Glass Steagall applies to banks. Banks didn't cause the problem. Lehman wasn't a bank. Merrill Lynch wasn't a bank. Bear Stearns wasn't a bank. AIG isn't a bank. Country wide mortgage isn't a bank. Goldman Sachs isn't a bank.

Glass Steagall didn't apply to any of them. So what's your point? How does not wanting to put it back in place make her the "corporatist" you claim she is?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lets-shatter-the-myth-on-glass-steagall/2012/07/27/gJQASaOAGX_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:34 PM

58. Why doesn't she want to put in back in place?

Seems a reasonable safeguard to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #58)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:47 PM

59. I don't think she has said that

I've heard she isn't "interested" in that. I'm sure someone will ask and she will answer fairly soon. But if I had to guess I would say the following -

- not getting it through a republican majority.

- would cost a ton of political capital, for little to no gain for real people (it's feel good shit right now)

- that political capital would be better spent on some of the really good economic proposals she talked about yesterday. Those would actually help people (and she's right - it's going to take multiple approaches to tackle the multiple causes of income inequality and a shrinking middle class)

- it would probably cause quite a bit of economic instability as they were broken up (not sure about that one - could be wrong on that)

This is precisely why I prefer her. She's not into feel good, or pandering, or being unrealistic - she is into solving the problems. As others have said, raising taxes isn't going to go into the pockets of the poor or middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #59)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:57 PM

61. Well, you can have her -- you and Goldman Sachs

and all her other wealthy friends.

You don't have an answer, and your speculation is worth zilch.

As for her "really good" economic proposals, puh-leeze. Warmed over and uninspiring. You know what was missing? Raising taxes on the uber-wealthy. GLARING omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:11 PM

62. Warmed over by who?

I've never heard any candidate make some of the proposals she made yesterday before. Who?

And why do you persist with this Goldman Sachs nonsense? Her top donor category is lawyers, followed by retired people. I think less than 4% of her lifetime contributions came from people that work for investment or banking companies. Is she in the tank for retired people?

Why can NONE of the Bernie people back up any of the stuff they use to bash her? What if I made up some dumb story that Bernie was in the tank for the NRA or Zionist and repeated it over and over again? Would that be okay?

Typical extremist stuff from the Bernie crowd. It's like watching the tea party version of the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #62)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:42 PM

64. Who didn't is more like it -- nothing new or even interesting in there.

I was thoroughly unimpressed.

Here, read these. You might learn something about liberal Democrats and Hillary Clinton's shenanigans:
Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Problem; She talks populism, but hobnobs with Wall Street.

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary: She's trying to sound populist, but the banks are ready to shower her campaign with cash.

. . . But here’s the strange thing: Down on Wall Street they don’t believe (her populist rhetoric) for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.

. . . According to a wide assortment of bankers and hedge-fund managers I spoke to for this article, Clinton’s rock-solid support on Wall Street is not anything that can be dislodged based on a few seemingly off-the-cuff comments in Boston calculated to protect her left flank.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #64)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 12:17 AM

65. It's hard to take you seriously

Who has proposed small biz tax breaks for company's that profit share with employees? Who has proposed a tax credit for hiring and training people? Not Bernie, that's for sure.

Not a single thing he proposed would see the light of day. Everything you folks want is nothing more than symbolic. You forget that there are people in the equation. All your elitists symbolism is not going to help those people.

As for your Goldman links here is what they break down to:

1. Goldman Sachs owns meeting space in Manhattan. Because they have large meetings. I believe it's an auditorium. From time to time they loan that meeting space out at no cost to charities and other non-profits. And the Clinton foundation used it for an annual meeting. Do you think other charities haven't used it? Of course they have. Why is that bad?

2. You seem to insinuate that the Clinton Foundation is a bad thing. So what has the Clinton Foundation done that was bad? They are a highly rated charity that has done a lot of good work. Why is that bad?

3. She made a speech ragging on Wall Street but Politico told you some anonymous banker who shall not be named said she didn't mean a word of it.

Now look above and read again. Can you honestly tell me this isn't the exact same shit Limbaugh and Fox and Brietbart and the rest of the tea party media do to Dems in general? Why the hell are you falling for it. I used to think liberals were smarter than that, but this campaign is teaching me differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 07:50 AM

67. It was one piece of a mosaic.

You are correct in the part about a couple of the institutions that were bailed out. They are not truly banks in the traditional sense.

They were investment clearing houses.

The banks that were previously constricted in investing their clients money by Glass-Steagal were suddenly free to hand the money off to the clearing house.

When these clearing houses were given the bailout it was not them who were at risk for default, it was those banks that had risked their clients money.

Which brings up another piece of the mosaic -- the principle that corporations have a responsibility to the health of the their shareholders but no such responsibility to the health of their customers.

The complaint by so many is that there were no safeguards put in place for the customers, the clients.

Not even now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #67)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:54 AM

68. You're just factually wrong

I know you think you dreamed up a way to blame Glass Steagall using this:

"The banks that were previously constricted in investing their clients money by Glass-Steagal were suddenly free to hand the money...." But you're just factually wrong.

A. That didn't happen, and

B. That is not what Glass Steagall is about. It's about banks also acting as investment brokerages.

If anything the repeal minimized the damage because it allowed commercial banks to buy some of the failing investment banks. If not for that a lot of people would have lost a lot more money, including 401k retirement accounts and pension funds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #68)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:09 AM

69. That is some spin you got there.

And all to defend an untenable position by your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #69)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:22 AM

70. It's not spin - it's fact

And leftist extremists don't seem to deal with facts any better than right wing extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #70)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:31 AM

71. A fact disputed by quite a few economists.

Reich:

Hillary Clinton won't propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act -- at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton's campaign. "You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It's a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It's a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we're in danger of another one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/hillary-clintons-glass-steagall_b_7798344.html

Krugman and Warren, etc.

...what Dodd-Frank failed to do. It did not eliminate too-big-to-fail, either by breaking up the banks or by prohibiting them, Glass-Steagall style, from making risky investments. Instead, the six biggest banks—JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley—were allowed to grow 37 percent larger by the end of 2013 than in 2008–09, at the height of the crisis. Although Dodd-Frank gave the FDIC orderly liquidation authority—that is, the power to impose losses on a failed institution’s shareholders and creditors—simply bestowing that power doesn’t mean that the agency will be prepared to use it, especially if the result will be market disruptions and contagion to other financial institutions. The fact of large financial institutions operating across borders means that orderly resolution will require close cooperation between courts and regulators in a number of countries, in order to avoid a disorderly scramble for assets like what followed the failure of Lehman Brothers.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/04/how_the_wall_street_weasels_won_elizabeth_warren_paul_krugman_and_the_1_percents_desperate_battle_to_save_themselves/

The ONLY candidate pushing the meme you suggest are the gop and Hillary.

Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exindy (Reply #71)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:59 AM

72. Reich went off the rails years ago

Warren and Krugman are well aware that it wasn't commercial banks that failed and therefore the 2008 meltdown has nothing to do with Glass Steagall.

Now one may wish to debate that we should put it back in place. But the 2008 meltdown is not evidence that it should. That's just contrary to the facts.

It makes for a great political boogey man because people don't actually know what they are talking about, so they believe what they are told by people that want to advance a particular political ideology. I am sure that Warren and Krugman, who I both like, know this.

I personally don't think it matters either way. Silly thing to talk about with congress controlled by republicans because it won't pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 07:28 PM

73. Tell ya what --

I'll take Robert Reich's word on the subject over yours any day, every day, through eternity:

Robert Reich: Hillary Clinton's Glass-Steagall
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/hillary-clintons-glass-steagall_b_7798344.html


Hillary Clinton won't propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act -- at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton's campaign. "You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It's a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It's a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we're in danger of another one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms.Eloriel (Reply #73)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 07:40 PM

74. Why would you not expect Reich to back up his claims?

He says it, but gives no actual reason or explanation to back up his opinion - but that's fine with you?

That's really the hallmark of the Bernie supporters in my opinion. You don't think critically or question anything. Much like the tea party extremists you all just seem to believe anything that confirms your bias and soothes you emotionally. No better than the tea party types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:54 PM

60. So you think Sanders supporters do so because...

...they have been CONVINCED BY RIGHT WINGERS to support him?

Without right wingers, no one would be supporting Sanders?

Good grief. That's insanity talking there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:24 PM

23. Surprise surprise.

But there is no other choice, suckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:29 PM

26. All in your fevered imaginations

Clearly you can't back up any of the baloney you float. But just like the right wingers facts just don't matter. Like Howard Dean said, we have our extremists too. At least ours only make up 10% of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 04:37 PM

30. Yes, we have right wing extremists in the Democratic party.

 

They used to be called the DLC. Until that brand name became to toxic. Then, following the lead of Blackwater, and Phillip Morris Tobacco they "rebranded" under a new name.

Turd Way is just as extreme and just as toxic though. Also just as Koch funded - though that was also rebranded as "the Georgia Pacific foundation". As if it isn't widely known who owns Georgia Pacific???

And it's not as though Stalin's pals Chuck & Dave are the only toxic names on the Turd Way money list.....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Third_Way_Foundation

Now THAT is some serious extremism backing St. Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:15 PM

34. You appear to be having a melt down

I guess that is the best sign yet that I am exactly right about HRC's speech today. Same thing is going on at DU. It's hilarious.

They should probably take your keyboards away on the day the nomination is sealed for her. LOL! Just kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:26 PM

37. Who's having the meltdown?

 

My money is on the hysterical Hillbot who is following Bernie supporters from thread to thread spewing venom.

But to each their own - or at least what Al From tells them to say, I guess.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:32 PM

38. I'm happy as a clam after that speech

No meltdown from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:10 PM

32. Sadly, anyone to the left of Reagan is now an "extremist".

“In a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was. He started the EPA, started a whole lot of the regulatory state that has helped keep our air and water clean.” - Barack Obama

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not.” - Barack Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:13 PM

33. I have never yet met an extremist that realizes....

... they are an extremist. Not on the right, or the left. The pure Socialism Bernie spouts would definitely be considered extremists by most of the country. It's really just the polar opposite of folks like Trump, Cruz, and Paul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:19 PM

35. No it's not.

Nothing extreme about me.

Not being happy with Obama filling his cabinet with Republicans, blue dogs and people who work for the corporations they are supposed to be governing is not extreme.

Not being happy that our jobs are being farmed out to other countries by the corporations who are backing our politicians is not extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:23 PM

36. You definitely are in my opinion....

We have millions of people with an equal right to marry, great appointments to the USSC, affordable health care, saving the auto industry, making banks pay back their TARP money, an exit from two wars, successfully handled FP issues in the ME without boots on the ground, better banking regulations, an increase in taxes on the wealthy, a huge focus on renewable energy, etc, etc, etc.

And yet you STILL claim he is republican lite. Because you think republicans would have done ANY of that?

You are the very definition of a left wing extremist in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:02 PM

40. You're an insincere, dishonest person in my book.

You're a DLC cartoon character with no soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:11 PM

41. Well you would think that...

That's how extremists think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #41)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:28 PM

43. Alert failed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:33 PM

45. I didn't alert on you

Yes, you are obnoxious with your name calling. But I would much prefer you be allowed to advertise it.

This is like the third time today you have used your obviously faulty crystal ball on me. Maybe you should realize it is not working at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:58 PM

39. repealing Glass Steagall had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2007-08.

It is lefty myth.

Lehman, Merrill, Bear, Countrywide, IndyMac, and hundreds of other failed banks were NOT SUBJECT TO GLASS STEAGALL REGULATIONS.

WERE NOT

Clear enough?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moneyshot (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:11 PM

42. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moneyshot (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:29 PM

44. So FDR was an idiot...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #44)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:33 PM

46. They probably do believe that.

 

Al From, Bruce Reed, and Will "PNAC" Marshall, the founders of the DLC who brainwashed them, said that their entire purpose was to "liberate" the Democratic party from the policies of FDR and the New Deal.

Yes, you can puke now......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #44)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:33 PM

47. The good part of Glass-Steagall is still intact (the FDIC deposit insurance)

But the part repealed just prevented a Lehman from joining a Washington Mutual deposit bank.

Like merging.

So when they both failed SEPARATELY (along with hundreds like them) what good did Glass-Steagall do?

Answer - NONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moneyshot (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:46 PM

49. What good did allowing Wall Street to commit white collar crime with impunity do?

Crash of 08 with not only no repercussions but a bailout for the people who fund our politician's political campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #44)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:37 PM

48. No, I think we can safely assume he knew....

That Glass Steagall did not apply to mortgage and investment brokers. So the answer is no, he was not an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #48)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:02 PM

52. This must be a parody.

"That Glass Steagall did not apply to mortgage and investment brokers. So the answer is no, he was not an idiot."

No one is this stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #52)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:09 PM

53. Glass Steagall applied to banks

Not mortgage brokers and investment brokers. Educate yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gr8Daze (Reply #53)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:11 PM

54. Educate this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attila Gorilla (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:34 PM

55. Well I'm sorry dude

That's just a fact. Don't get mad at facts. Just deal with them.

ETA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lets-shatter-the-myth-on-glass-steagall/2012/07/27/gJQASaOAGX_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FORD (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 10:20 PM

63. You're gonna feel awful

when you end up having to vote for her to keep the Donald out of the Whitehouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #63)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 12:27 AM

66. Not going to happen.

 

If Hillary is the nominee, I'll be voting for Jill Stein.

Hopefully that won't even be necessary. It's bad enough I'm going to have to find somebody else to vote for in the Senate race, after Patty Murray's SHAFTA betrayal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsreinstateglasssteagallnowstopthecriminalbanksters