A Bankster Calls For Glass-Steagall

[Truthmatters]

The republicans deregulate and every time they do the people get fucked

MEMO TO TM:

Clinton got da' ball rolling...............

No he fucking didnt.

the banks had worked on this for years.

Gramm (Of gramm leach bliely) left congress as soon as it passed for a job at UBS

 

[Truthmatters]

Gramm


Legislative history





Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, November 4, 1999
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[3]

 

[B. Kidd]

There were a number of Glass-Steagall bank acts, and most are still in effect. One was changed and before wanting something back, we need to actually look at it:
I don't see our needing any any of that brought back, but just what is it that you believe we need now?

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks. It came down with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall worked for 70 years and kept the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle in place.
My link below keeps it simple and understandable, so what is it that confuses you? The fact that ending that 'firewall' failed? (as calling you stupid serves no purpose...).

The Repeal Of The Glass Steagall Act And Its Contribution To The 2008/2009 Economic Crisis

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks.

Why?

“Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.”


Despite the strong case for keeping the Glass-Steagall Act, the banks continued to lobby, and the Act was repealed. What happened? Surprise; the government was required to pay large sums to keep our depository institutions from collapsing.

Which bank(s) would have collapsed from securities losses?

Are you serious?
Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up bailing out.............duhhh..........

Now, you personally are not scum.............but stupid. On the upside, being stupid is better then being scum. Consider this a compliment.
Yer' welcome.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks. It came down with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall worked for 70 years and kept the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle in place.
My link below keeps it simple and understandable, so what is it that confuses you? The fact that ending that 'firewall' failed? (as calling you stupid serves no purpose...).

The Repeal Of The Glass Steagall Act And Its Contribution To The 2008/2009 Economic Crisis

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks.

Why?

“Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.”


Despite the strong case for keeping the Glass-Steagall Act, the banks continued to lobby, and the Act was repealed. What happened? Surprise; the government was required to pay large sums to keep our depository institutions from collapsing.

Which bank(s) would have collapsed from securities losses?

Are you serious?
Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Now, you personally are not scum.............but stupid. On the upside, being stupid is better then being scum. Consider this a compliment.
Yer' welcome.

Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Which ones were bailed out because of securities and which ones were bailed out because of bad loans?

 

[Truthmatters]

UBS - Wealth Management US - Senator Phil Gramm

 

[Truthmatters]

You absorbing the new facts Bkid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You absorbing the new facts Bkid?

He's probably thinking about how to break it to you that Clinton was President in 1999, when Glass-Steagall was repealed.

 

[B. Kidd]

For starters, putting an effective 'firewall' back up between commercial and investment banks.

Why?

“Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.”


Despite the strong case for keeping the Glass-Steagall Act, the banks continued to lobby, and the Act was repealed. What happened? Surprise; the government was required to pay large sums to keep our depository institutions from collapsing.

Which bank(s) would have collapsed from securities losses?

Are you serious?
Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Now, you personally are not scum.............but stupid. On the upside, being stupid is better then being scum. Consider this a compliment.
Yer' welcome.

Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Which ones were bailed out because of securities and which ones were bailed out because of bad loans?

Here is the initial list.
You tell me. Major Bank books aren't exactly trustworthy.
And, my memory serves me well that banks had 'promised' to loosen lending, but were not explicitly bound by TARP to lend. And, we all know how that worked out.......IT DIDN'T!!!
You are a major Kool-Aid drinker...................

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you serious?
Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Now, you personally are not scum.............but stupid. On the upside, being stupid is better then being scum. Consider this a compliment.
Yer' welcome.

Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Which ones were bailed out because of securities and which ones were bailed out because of bad loans?

Here is the initial list.
You tell me. Major Bank books aren't exactly trustworthy.
And, my memory serves me well that banks had 'promised' to loosen lending, but were not explicitly bound by TARP to lend. And, we all know how that worked out.......IT DIDN'T!!!
You are a major Kool-Aid drinker...................

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

Here is the initial list.
You tell me.

LOL!
You claimed banks needed to be bailed out because the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed them to trade securities.
That means you need to prove your claim. Not me.

 

[B. Kidd]

Fer' starters, start with the ones we ended up baling out.............duhhh..........

Which ones were bailed out because of securities and which ones were bailed out because of bad loans?

Here is the initial list.
You tell me. Major Bank books aren't exactly trustworthy.
And, my memory serves me well that banks had 'promised' to loosen lending, but were not explicitly bound by TARP to lend. And, we all know how that worked out.......IT DIDN'T!!!
You are a major Kool-Aid drinker...................

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

Here is the initial list.
You tell me.

LOL!
You claimed banks needed to be bailed out because the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed them to trade securities.
That means you need to prove your claim. Not me.

Hey Schlubb........derivatives are securities.............welcome to the 21st century...............

Derivative Definition | Investopedia

Adios, Junior!

 

[B. Kidd]

And in all fairness, I will add that Sandy Weill is a Hypocrite with a capital H.............buuttttt, he is still right. (Afterall, hypocrisy is a tastier dessert, especially after 'he made his'. Now that you know what the 'rules' are, go make yours. But please, not under the guise of being a Patriot good-American!!!)

In Defining Hypocrisy, Weill, Who Led Repeal Of Glass Steagall, Now Says Big Banks Should Be Broken Up | ZeroHedge

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is the initial list.
You tell me. Major Bank books aren't exactly trustworthy.
And, my memory serves me well that banks had 'promised' to loosen lending, but were not explicitly bound by TARP to lend. And, we all know how that worked out.......IT DIDN'T!!!
You are a major Kool-Aid drinker...................

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

Here is the initial list.
You tell me.

LOL!
You claimed banks needed to be bailed out because the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed them to trade securities.
That means you need to prove your claim. Not me.

Hey Schlubb........derivatives are securities.............welcome to the 21st century...............

Derivative Definition | Investopedia

Adios, Junior!

Great, which banks needed to be bailed out because of derivatives?

I'll wait for your list.

 

[B. Kidd]

Here is the initial list.
You tell me.

LOL!
You claimed banks needed to be bailed out because the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed them to trade securities.
That means you need to prove your claim. Not me.

Hey Schlubb........derivatives are securities.............welcome to the 21st century...............

Derivative Definition | Investopedia

Adios, Junior!

Great, which banks needed to be bailed out because of derivatives?

I'll wait for your list.

You remind me of the head of a posse chasing a bank robber that comes to a fork in the road and asks, "which way did they go?". And an old Indian is sitting there and points in one direction and you ride off into the sunset on bad info..
Good luck an'.......adios muchacho............... (hasn't a clue.)

 

[Sallow]

Goldman Sachs couldn't write bad mortgages under Glass-Steagall?
Countrywide?
What about Bank of America?
Could they write bad mortgages?

Seriously, just what do you think the crisis was about?

It's amazing you come up with this crap in the face of reality.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

It's not an easy thing to understand..but there's a really good film on the topic. You might want to check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)

Or you could get the book.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

Savings banks got in trouble because they wrote, or bought, bad mortgages.
They didn't get into trouble because they could suddenly underwrite securities.
You could do some research, but it would conflict with your ignorance of the topic.

You are utterly wrong on this.

I don't need to do any research either..I spend 13.5 years at the NYSE..and a year and a half doing consulting work for financial firms before that.

I've actually met, in real life..some of the people depicted in the film/book I recommended to you.

I can only lead you to the water..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey Schlubb........derivatives are securities.............welcome to the 21st century...............

Derivative Definition | Investopedia

Adios, Junior!

Great, which banks needed to be bailed out because of derivatives?

I'll wait for your list.

You remind me of the head of a posse chasing a bank robber that comes to a fork in the road and asks, "which way did they go?". And an old Indian is sitting there and points in one direction and you ride off into the sunset on bad info..
Good luck an'.......adios muchacho............... (hasn't a clue.)

So you'll be leaving without proving your claim?
That's a shock. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's amazing you come up with this crap in the face of reality.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

It's not an easy thing to understand..but there's a really good film on the topic. You might want to check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_(film)

Or you could get the book.

It would have been a great deal more difficult for savings banks to become involved in the sort of nonsense that caused the financial collapse had Glass-Steagall been in place.

Savings banks got in trouble because they wrote, or bought, bad mortgages.
They didn't get into trouble because they could suddenly underwrite securities.
You could do some research, but it would conflict with your ignorance of the topic.

You are utterly wrong on this.

I don't need to do any research either..I spend 13.5 years at the NYSE..and a year and a half doing consulting work for financial firms before that.

I've actually met, in real life..some of the people depicted in the film/book I recommended to you.

I can only lead you to the water..

That's awesome. So which banks got in trouble from underwriting or securities trading?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The bankers want no regulation. The repubs want no regulation. And some dems, also well paid by banks, want no regulation. And Widdle wants no regulation. Try stepping away from the con dogma, and spend some time in the real world.

In the real world Bear Sterns, Lehman, and Merryl were Ibanks that went bankrupt thus precipating the current crisis. Glass would have had no effect on them yet liberals cling like goofy little children to the myth about magical liberal soviet regulation.

Its an even bigger joke when you realize that over 200 regulators had offices inside Lehman's building and did not see what was happening right under their noses. Now the SEC cant prosecute because the regulators were in on the deal the entire time.

The situation was identical at Fanny Freddie. You had 100's of regulators working full time at Fan/Fred offices the entire time. That one has cost us 150 billion so far in bailouts.


One cant fathom the pure liberal ignorance in wanting stilll more liberal soviet regulation!!

If you deregulate you instantly get 310 million new regulators and thats the exact number needed to get the job done and safeguard the country!!