President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rick]

The spelling Police have been noted.

Just messing with you bro.

[Don]

It took 3 votes, and the "no's" won and they passed it anyway.

I think it sounded like the yea's had a slight advantage but it was certainly nowhere near the 2/3 majority the motion needed to be carried.

Villagarosa didn't know what to do, after the second vote the lady came up behind him and said, "you have to rule, let them do what they do." So he ask again and passed it, then they boo'd.

Here's hoping that Tony Villar gets raped by a drunken sasquatch.

[Rick]

give it up Bill, for crying out loud

We don't want.

You would never admit that he was the best president in your lifetime, but he was. And you had better get used to 4 more years of Obama.

If you don't like it, complain to the Republican party for putting up not one, but two turds to run against him.

I said it early on and I was wrong, that the Republican party would run a minority, just in desperation to win this one, but maybe they should have.

[Don]

I'd take the hick from Hope (Arkansas) over either of these clowns but Reagan is The PRESIDENT of my life time.

[steveo777]

I'd take the hick from Hope (Arkansas) over either of these clowns but Reagan is The PRESIDENT of my life time.

Sadly, Bill put on a pretty great speech, but those were not Obama's words. They were Bill's and he can't run for president.

[slucero]

I'd take the hick from Hope (Arkansas) over either of these clowns but Reagan is The PRESIDENT of my life time.

Sadly, Bill put on a pretty great speech, but those were not Obama's words. They were Bill's and he can't run for president.

THANK GOD.

[Rick]

I'd take the hick from Hope (Arkansas) over either of these clowns but Reagan is The PRESIDENT of my life time.

Sadly, Bill put on a pretty great speech, but those were not Obama's words. They were Bill's and he can't run for president.

THANK GOD.

Didn't like Clinton? How?

[slucero]

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.

President Barack Obama has stated that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.

A Republican Congress passed it and Clinton signed it into law... and look at the economy today and what put us here.




One need look no further than recent comments from Former Citigroup Chairman & CEO Sanford I. Weill, the champion of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, the man who invented the financial supermarket [Too Big To Fail] called for the breakup of big banks in an interview on CNBC.

“What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking, have banks be deposit takers, have banks make commercial loans and real estate loans, have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not too big to fail,” Weill told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”...

Geee.... that sounds.. just like Glass-Steagal... the very act he championed the repeal of... that Clinton signed into law in 1999... and resulted in imploding the economy in 8 years.




So no...We don't need another Clinton in office.... fact is, simply based on what they've DONE.. we don't need another Democrat OR Republican in office... but we're gonna get one or the other... and more of the same...

[tater1977]

Group: FAA bosses urged workers to vote Democrat

A government transparency group is urging an investigation into Federal Aviation Administration managers who allegedly urged workers in Seattle to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

The Associated Press
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ ... attle.html

SEATTLE —
A government transparency group is urging an investigation into Federal Aviation Administration managers who allegedly urged workers in Seattle to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

The Washington, D.C.,-based group Cause of Action sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general saying that in May at a staff meeting in Seattle, two FAA managers told employees that if Republicans win the presidential and congressional elections, the agency would face budget cuts. They allegedly said that if Democrats win, their budget would remain largely unchanged.

Employees at the meeting complained, saying the statement felt like a threat.

Cause of Action argues that the managers violated rules that certain federal employees cannot engage in partisan politics at the workplace.

A FAA comment was not immediately available

[Behshad]

give it up Bill, for crying out loud

We don't want.

You'd rather see an old senile man in diapers argue with a chair ?!

Clinton totally & systematically destroyed and ripped republicans apart.
Nobody expected people like you to understand it , cause you were watching him with your blinders on
His speech was for those who are still on the fence and his job was to help them make up their mind and he did that and then some.
His speech last night ,plus tonight's event will be the nail in the coffin for Romney !

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

good grief idol worshipping- whether that is idol worshiping Clinton, Obama, or Romney is nonsense and should remain in totalitarian societies Case in point:





how silly is that magazine cover

[Behshad]

Five Myths about Glass-Steagall
By Peter J. Wallison
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Filed under: Economic Policy

There is a remarkable degree of ignorance about the alleged role of Glass-Steagall in the financial crisis. It’s time to set the record straight.

When Sandy Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup, told an interviewer that he thought it had been a mistake to repeal Glass-Steagall, it unleashed a gale of commentary that reflected a remarkable degree of ignorance about the alleged role of Glass-Steagall in the financial crisis. The five myths discussed below do not cover all the misconceptions that seem to be held by those who want to restore Glass-Steagall, but they cover some of the most widely discussed.

Myth 1: Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

No. Glass-Steagall was never repealed. It is still applicable to insured banks and forbids them from underwriting or dealing in securities. What was repealed in 1999 were the sections of Glass-Steagall that prohibited insured banks from being affiliated with firms—commonly called investment banks—that engaged in underwriting and dealing in securities.

Myth 2: The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to use taxpayer-insured funds for risky trading.

No. The portions of Glass-Steagall that remained in effect after 1999 prohibited insured banks from underwriting or dealing in securities. However, before and after 1999, banks were permitted to trade (that is, buy and sell) bonds and other fixed-income securities for their own account. This is logical, because these instruments are simply a loan in a securitized form, and loans are the stock-in-trade of banks. Just as Exxon Mobil is allowed to trade oil, banks must be allowed to trade the assets that are an essential part of their business. This inevitably involved banks using insured funds for trading, which was permitted both before and after Glass-Steagall was amended in 1999. Calling this trading “risky” puts a thumb on the scale, but doesn’t change the fact that banks have always been allowed to trade securities they can invest in.

Myth 3: In the financial crisis, banks got into trouble by trading “risky” mortgage-backed securities (MBS).

The fact that insured banks suffered losses buying and holding AAA-rated MBS may say something about their investment acumen, but it says nothing about their trading or their risk-taking.
No. Insured banks got into trouble in the financial crisis by buying and holding MBS backed by subprime and other low-quality mortgages, not from trading these instruments. When these loans declined in value in 2007, they caused significant losses to the banks that had invested in them. This is the same thing as saying that banks got into trouble by making bad loans, but it has nothing to do with Glass-Steagall or its supposed repeal. In addition, these MBS were not seen as “risky” when acquired. The MBS that banks bought and held were rated AAA, the lowest risk MBS available. In buying and holding these instruments, banks received the lowest returns. If they had really wanted to make risky “bets,” they would have bought MBS rated below AAA, where the risks were greater and the returns correspondingly higher. The fact that insured banks suffered losses buying and holding AAA-rated MBS may say something about their investment acumen, but it says nothing about their trading or their risk-taking.

Myth 4: The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed bank holding companies and insured bank-affiliated investment banks to use insured funds for risky trading.

Very unlikely. The 1999 change in Glass-Steagall allowed insured banks to be affiliated with investment banks, which could indeed take substantial risks in underwriting, dealing, and trading securities of all types. Investment banks—even those affiliated with insured banks—have no access to insured deposits. Moreover, banking regulations make it extremely difficult for insured banks to lend funds to, guarantee, or otherwise assume or support the risk-taking of their affiliates. Under provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, bank loans to affiliates have to be made at arm's length (that is, on the same terms as the bank would make to an unaffiliated party), must be collateralized by U.S. government securities, and must be limited in the aggregate to 20 percent of the bank’s capital. Even if the loans are made—which is seldom, if at all—they are risk-free because of their collateralization. It would make much more sense for affiliates to raise their funds in the capital markets, which is what they ordinarily do.

Myth 5: By allowing insured banks to affiliate with risk-taking investment banks, the 1999 change in Glass-Steagall caused losses to the banks that contributed to the financial crisis.

No. As noted above, insured banks suffered losses in the financial crisis by making bad loans—that is, buying and holding MBS based on subprime and other low-quality mortgages. Although investment banks could take more risks than insured banks and had much higher leverage, the investment banks that got into trouble in the crisis—Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch—were not affiliated with any of the insured banks that had major losses, and thus could not have caused these losses. In addition, these investment banks got into trouble not by taking greater risks than insured banks but by buying and holding the same AAA-rated MBS based on subprime and other low-quality mortgages. Finally, there is no evidence that the small investment banks with which the insured banks were affiliated contributed in any significant way to the losses of the insured banks. In other words, if Glass-Steagall had never been amended in 1999, the financial crisis of 2008 would have happened exactly as it did. Those who spend their time blaming Glass-Steagall’s repeal for the financial crisis need to think again.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

[Behshad]

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

BS

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

[Andrew]

Bill Clinton rules. What a speech!

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

BS

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

Hardly BS, part of the reason the economy took a dump was because there was a huge bubble of bad debt that finally burst that was encouraged by the Clinton administrations encouragement of riskly lending - risky lending , telling bankers don't worry about making risky loads and securitizing them - HUD and Fannie and Freddie will back your recklessness.

the crash of the economy was one part Clinton, One part Bush (for his reckless deficit spending) and One part Greenspan for his reckless expansion of the money supply.

[Behshad]

give it up Bill, for crying out loud

We don't want.

You would never admit that he was the best president in your lifetime, but he was. And you had better get used to 4 more years of Obama.

If you don't like it, complain to the Republican party for putting up not one, but two turds to run against him.

I said it early on and I was wrong, that the Republican party would run a minority, just in desperation to win this one, but maybe they should have.

Um, no and no.

[Monker]

Oh, yes, everybody knew in 1999 that the entire financial industry would collapse in 10yrs.

Funny how W did absolutely nothing to stop it from happening.

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

BS

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

Even the New York Times saw it coming in 1999, 2 years before Bush.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

New York Times September 30, 1999 STEVEN A. HOLMES

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

[Monker]

You just post the headlines and news for the day.

Where is the headline for this?

quote="Fact Finder"]Nice.


[/quote]

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

there were lots of people warning of the nonsense the fed was doing in 1999 and rising asset bubbles and bad loans. No W did absolutely noting to stop it( I never claimed anything to the contrary did I ??) and he made the problem worse by running up massive debt including debt on a war in Iraq which on reflection was ill advised- as I said the collapse was one part Greenspan , one part clinton, and one part Bush. Just like the current lack of recovery is one part Bush one part obama, and one part Bernanke.

Oh, yes, everybody knew in 1999 that the entire financial industry would collapse in 10yrs.

Funny how W did absolutely nothing to stop it from happening.

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

BS

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

Even the New York Times saw it coming in 1999, 2 years before Bush.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

New York Times September 30, 1999 STEVEN A. HOLMES

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

[Monker]

Didn't like Clinton? How?

Look up "the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" otherwise known as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ... he signed it into law... and all the good he ever did, was undone by this.

.

Agree and this was another Clinton howler that helped contribute to the subprime crisis.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... drive.html

BS

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

Hardly BS, part of the reason the economy took a dump was because there was a huge bubble of bad debt that finally burst that was encouraged by the Clinton administrations encouragement of riskly lending - risky lending , telling bankers don't worry about making risky loads and securitizing them - HUD and Fannie and Freddie will back your recklessness.

the crash of the economy was one part Clinton, One part Bush (for his reckless deficit spending) and One part Greenspan for his reckless expansion of the money supply.

First of all the Fanny & Freddy thing was only a fraction of what the problem was. The vast majority of the issue was NOT government backed loans but allowing risk to be transferred, bought and sold, exchanged...THAT is Lehman Brothers, Bears Stern, and tons of other financial institutions WORLDWIDE started to go under.

This happened under W's watch. His financial team was out of touch. They are supposed to know and understand what is going on with Wallstreet, but they didn't. It was their JOB and they failed. They had NO IDEA how bad off the financial system was until it was too late. It was FAR worse then just Fannie and freddy...and you are also out of touch and ignorant if you don't know and understand that by now.

Yes, you can 'blame Clinton' for deregulating and not having a crystal ball to see how the financial industry would abuse those new freedoms, and how W's administration would totally miss those abuses. But, you are assigning way too much responsibility to that one act.

It was a combination of a lot of things. Deregulation. The financial industry ignoring the risk of loans, greed of corporations outweighing their ability to act responsibly, greedy and/or naive consumers who were asking for loans they knew they couldn't afford, regulators up to the highest level who advised W who had lost touch with what was truly going on with the industry they were supposed be watching.

That is a hell of lot more complicated then what you describe.

[slucero]

Five Myths about Glass-Steagall
By Peter J. Wallison
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Filed under: Economic Policy

There is a remarkable degree of ignorance about the alleged role of Glass-Steagall in the financial crisis. It’s time to set the record straight.

When Sandy Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup, told an interviewer that he thought it had been a mistake to repeal Glass-Steagall, it unleashed a gale of commentary that reflected a remarkable degree of ignorance about the alleged role of Glass-Steagall in the financial crisis. The five myths discussed below do not cover all the misconceptions that seem to be held by those who want to restore Glass-Steagall, but they cover some of the most widely discussed.

Myth 1: Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

No. Glass-Steagall was never repealed. It is still applicable to insured banks and forbids them from underwriting or dealing in securities. What was repealed in 1999 were the sections of Glass-Steagall that prohibited insured banks from being affiliated with firms—commonly called investment banks—that engaged in underwriting and dealing in securities.

Nice misdirection, in the same sentence he says what wasn't repealed was repealed. LMAO.

Translation: After the repeal.. insured banks could affiliate with investment banks, hence take the same risk.


Myth 2: The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to use taxpayer-insured funds for risky trading.

No. The portions of Glass-Steagall that remained in effect after 1999 prohibited insured banks from underwriting or dealing in securities. However, before and after 1999, banks were permitted to trade (that is, buy and sell) bonds and other fixed-income securities for their own account. This is logical, because these instruments are simply a loan in a securitized form, and loans are the stock-in-trade of banks. Just as Exxon Mobil is allowed to trade oil, banks must be allowed to trade the assets that are an essential part of their business. This inevitably involved banks using insured funds for trading, which was permitted both before and after Glass-Steagall was amended in 1999. Calling this trading “risky” puts a thumb on the scale, but doesn’t change the fact that banks have always been allowed to trade securities they can invest in.

Again.. nice misdirection... but referring back to his own point in #1, this response avoids the obvious.. that banks were now able to associate with investment banks and buy MBS rated "AAA", and lose their asses on those bets.


Myth 3: In the financial crisis, banks got into trouble by trading “risky” mortgage-backed securities (MBS).

The fact that insured banks suffered losses buying and holding AAA-rated MBS may say something about their investment acumen, but it says nothing about their trading or their risk-taking.

No. Insured banks got into trouble in the financial crisis by buying and holding MBS backed by subprime and other low-quality mortgages, not from trading these instruments. When these loans declined in value in 2007, they caused significant losses to the banks that had invested in them. This is the same thing as saying that banks got into trouble by making bad loans, but it has nothing to do with Glass-Steagall or its supposed repeal. In addition, these MBS were not seen as “risky” when acquired. The MBS that banks bought and held were rated AAA, the lowest risk MBS available. In buying and holding these instruments, banks received the lowest returns. If they had really wanted to make risky “bets,” they would have bought MBS rated below AAA, where the risks were greater and the returns correspondingly higher. The fact that insured banks suffered losses buying and holding AAA-rated MBS may say something about their investment acumen, but it says nothing about their trading or their risk-taking.

More miss-direction. MBS were initially created by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to resell the mortgages, freeing the bank to make more loans and giving more people the ability to be homeowners. This allowed banks to own hedge funds and invest in complicated derivatives. Banking became more competitive, and the banks that had the most complicated financial products made the most money. The creation of mortgage-backed securities and the secondary market is one reason why the U.S. economy was so robust until 2007. AFter 1999 insured banks could take on the same risk as investment banks... and they did.


Myth 4: The repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed bank holding companies and insured bank-affiliated investment banks to use insured funds for risky trading.

Very unlikely. The 1999 change in Glass-Steagall allowed insured banks to be affiliated with investment banks, which could indeed take substantial risks in underwriting, dealing, and trading securities of all types. Investment banks—even those affiliated with insured banks—have no access to insured deposits. Moreover, banking regulations make it extremely difficult for insured banks to lend funds to, guarantee, or otherwise assume or support the risk-taking of their affiliates. Under provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, bank loans to affiliates have to be made at arm's length (that is, on the same terms as the bank would make to an unaffiliated party), must be collateralized by U.S. government securities, and must be limited in the aggregate to 20 percent of the bank’s capital. Even if the loans are made—which is seldom, if at all—they are risk-free because of their collateralization. It would make much more sense for affiliates to raise their funds in the capital markets, which is what they ordinarily do.

His 1st sentence says it all.. insured banks took on more risk... and he flat lies about insured bank deposits not being at risk, because this year Bank of America moved its derivatives book over to its consumer banking division, collateralizing it with depositors FDIC insured money... which simply means that if BofA's derivatives business goes bust, the payout from BofA to its derivatives creditors puts the creditors BEFORE the depositors... even though BofA's money is actually the depositors money (deposits).

But you knew that didn't you Einstein?



Myth 5: By allowing insured banks to affiliate with risk-taking investment banks, the 1999 change in Glass-Steagall caused losses to the banks that contributed to the financial crisis.

No. As noted above, insured banks suffered losses in the financial crisis by making bad loans—that is, buying and holding MBS based on subprime and other low-quality mortgages. Although investment banks could take more risks than insured banks and had much higher leverage, the investment banks that got into trouble in the crisis—Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch—were not affiliated with any of the insured banks that had major losses, and thus could not have caused these losses. In addition, these investment banks got into trouble not by taking greater risks than insured banks but by buying and holding the same AAA-rated MBS based on subprime and other low-quality mortgages. Finally, there is no evidence that the small investment banks with which the insured banks were affiliated contributed in any significant way to the losses of the insured banks. In other words, if Glass-Steagall had never been amended in 1999, the financial crisis of 2008 would have happened exactly as it did. Those who spend their time blaming Glass-Steagall’s repeal for the financial crisis need to think again.

Again.. more misdirection... LMAO...

He should have said "insured banks suffered losses in the financial crisis by making bad loans—that is, buying and holding MBS based on subprime and other low-quality mortgages sold to them by investment banks"...

Since the underlying premise of Glass-Steagall was to forbid banks, insurance companies, and investment banks from being the same institution, to say it's repeal was not a prime cause... is insanely disingenuous.

You should research what you cut and paste... and who writes it...

What you are cut & pasting is by Peter Wallison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Republican appointee to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and this article is a feeble fucking attempt at displacing/debunking the fact that a Republican/banker led deregulation of the banking industry, signed into law by a Democrat President (Clinton) was a large cause of the banking crisis.

This same hack blamed the the global financial crisis on U.S. affordable housing policies. He was the lone Republican dissenter on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report.


LOL.



By pasting this article you've just supported the Republicans and bankers..

well done... (I coulda sworn you smoked Dem poles.. but eh..)


Once again, just like the $1.5B GM profit lunacy you got your ASS handed to you about... you have no fucking idea what you are posting about...



I'm sure Fact Finder is laughing his ass off right now.....

[The Sushi Hunter]

Promoting the so called "American Dream" message only applies to those who spend their time looking for handouts and the non-US born masses, it no longer applies to the hard working American born people.

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

[Monker]

Promoting the so called "American Dream" message only applies to those who spend their time looking for handouts and the non-US born masses, it no longer applies to the hard working American born people.

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

And, it also doesn't apply to those who profess they are moving to Japan and don't care what happens in this country anyway.

[Monker]

there were lots of people warning of the nonsense the fed was doing in 1999 and rising asset bubbles and bad loans. No W did absolutely noting to stop it( I never claimed anything to the contrary did I ??)

And, that post was a reply to FF, not you.

and he made the problem worse by running up massive debt including debt on a war in Iraq which on reflection was ill advised

On REFLECTION? Bullshit. "This is a war our country can't afford." Me, in the WaterCooler in the BT forums before and at the start of the war in Iraq. Ok, maybe not an exact quote, but very close. Anybody with one fucking brain cell should have known that it was a huge mistake.

Republicans and conservatives bitch about passing Healthcare reform during a recession...but when it comes to going to war, they're all in. What a bunch of hypocrites.

And, it didn't make the problems on Wallstreet worse. They did it to themselves, with the Fed not even realizing it was happening.

as I said the collapse was one part Greenspan , one part clinton, and one part Bush.

And, one part naive/greedy consumers, one part greedy financial institutions, and one part FF because he didn't post the headlines.

[Behshad]

My initial reaction to most posts by B, Monker and TNC is to laugh, but in reality I understand that they are serious and quite frankly it scares me to death. They wont even admit to last nights fuck up at their own Convention regarding God in the platform. Telling.

Last nights fuck up !? Dude Last night secured the white house for Obama for another 4 years.
you know, no matter how brianwashed you are, at least you take pride in your party and you admit youre a republican. Then we have others around here who claim that they hate both parties , yet they bash democrats 100% and republicans 0% . Wonder why theyre ashamed of fessing up that theyre republicans ?

[Monker]

I'm sure Fact Finder is laughing his ass off right now.....

My initial reaction to most posts by B, Monker and TNC is to laugh, but in reality I understand that they are serious and quite frankly it scares me to death. They wont even admit to last nights fuck up at their own Convention regarding God in the platform. Telling.

First of all, it's not 'my party'

Second, the fuck up was even bringing it up for a vote.

Lastly, nobody really cares about this except Republicans who feel the need to promote the hatred in their party towards Democrats.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Promoting the so called "American Dream" message only applies to those who spend their time looking for handouts and the non-US born masses, it no longer applies to the hard working American born people.

Promoting the American dream isn't wrong. He did what he thought was right for the people at the time.
Not his fault that economy took a dump after him thanks to Bush

And, it also doesn't apply to those who profess they are moving to Japan and don't care what happens in this country anyway.

Me going to Japan has nothing to do with the "American Dream" you moron.

[Behshad]

My initial reaction to most posts by B, Monker and TNC is to laugh, but in reality I understand that they are serious and quite frankly it scares me to death. They wont even admit to last nights fuck up at their own Convention regarding God in the platform. Telling.

Last nights fuck up !? Dude Last night secured the white house for Obama for another 4 years.
you know, no matter how brianwashed you are, at least you take pride in your party and you admit youre a republican. Then we have others around here who claim that they hate both parties , yet they bash democrats 100% and republicans 0% . Wonder why theyre ashamed of fessing up that theyre republicans ?

Get your ass over here and clean this burrito off of my monitor you big dope. Fuck, beef, refried beans, hot sauce, lettuce, cheese and sour cream. You owe me .99 cents.

You owe me a case of beer !

[Behshad]