A Progressive, a Liberal, and a Leftist walk into a forum

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Progressive (Bill Clinton), a Liberal (Barney Frank), and a Leftist (Dennis Kucinich) walk into a forum: They discuss an issue: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act


Progressive was in favor of bill and signed it into law. Now says it was a terrible decision and a regret (but may be saying it softened the blow -- who knows?): Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did

Liberal was against the bill and is one of a handful of members of the Congress to vote against it: Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Leftist: I have no idea what he said. He's been so far left I always check myself when finding we agree on something. - go figure

Glass-Steagall was designed to prevent exactly the kind of collaboration that brought us the Goldman-Sachs fraud. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by a Republican-controlled Congress who pushed for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill. Gramm-Leach-Bliley was named after its three sponsors, all of them Republicans: Congressmen Phil Gramm (R-Texas), Jim Leach (R-Iowa) and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act tore down the regulatory framework that would have helped protect against the sub-prime mortgage bubble and the speculation that led to a collapse of the market where speculators traded the "derivative" securities that were created from those sub-prime mortgages. - The repeal of Glass-Steagall, who voted against it?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/s900 - The Bill
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/h570 - House Vote
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105 - Senate Vote

The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[1] Less than a year later, GLB was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".[2] - Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barney Frank

Right Wing Human Events lies through omission:

Top 10 Barney Frank Offenses | Human Events

1. Fannie and Freddie: As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank blocked tightened oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying in 2003, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” More than any other factor, the 2008 financial meltdown was caused by pushing these government-sponsored enterprises to encourage housing loans to risky borrowers. Thanks a lot, Barney.

Truth is: Frank was in the minority party in the US House when this stuff got crazy. Didn't get in control until 2007, after Bush and GOP along with many leading Dems pushed us over the cliff.

Chair of the House Financial Services Committee
In office
January 4, 2007 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by Mike Oxley

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[47] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[48] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[7]

In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[49] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[49] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing.

Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.

"If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank.

In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[7]

Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[49] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[49] Frank stated further that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration's approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush's desk in July 2008. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[50]

The thing is there are distinct differences between the positions and the reasoning behind them, and the ideological principles of each of the men (*sorry women) mentioned. All were Democrats (could have included Bernie Sanders as the 'Leftist', but chose to make it easier on simple minds like [MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION])

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and of course strict ideologues and simple minds on the left (included are Democrats, Progressives, Leftists, but not Liberals because Liberals see clearly) will vehemently disagree with Bill Clinton being outed as what he was: a moderate Progressive

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh yeah: Check Mate

What is intelligible is that I have given you a solution, one which you don't have the gonads to take. Give me EXAMPLES. Name specific positions that separate liberals, progressives and leftists. And name politicians who are one and not the other.

Calling yourselves different things and then having identical positions on EVERY issue and supporting the exact same politicians is a distinction without a difference. Answer the question. I'm slapping your face with my glove, calling you a dickless wonder, and daring you to ANSWER THE QUESTION!

You too, [MENTION]Dante[/MENTION]....

I'm going to mention you two every time someone else makes the claims you to do and doesn't have the Johnson to actually back it up like you to don't.

Hey, here's a thought. Finish this riddle. A Progressive, a liberal and a leftist walk into a bar. On TV is a discussion of who might run for POTUS. They all support a different candidate. They each state a name and three clear, meaningful differences between them they disagree with the others about demonstrating why one is a liberal, one is a progressive and one is a leftist.

So, who did they each name,and what were their issues?

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] [MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]
Always with the false choices? Would be disappointing if I came to a thread with you in it looking for serious and rational discussion.

but watch for this:

Thread coming soon: A Progressive, a Liberal, and a Leftist walk into a forum. by Dante

No, it's not serious and rational discussion. You said you are a liberal, you are not a leftist like the Democrats. I asked for positions that make you a liberal not a leftist, things you disagree with them on. You can't give me a single one. I asked for politicians who are liberal, not leftist, you can't name one.

And I asked who you would support for POTUS who is a liberal, not a leftist, you can't name one either. You're not serious at all, you're just shooting blanks.

The answer is you like the word liberal, you don't like the word leftists. Which is what I said to Wry, there is no difference, none. And neither of you can think of any.

QED, they are the same...

 

[kaz]

Oh yeah: Check Mate

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] [MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]
Always with the false choices? Would be disappointing if I came to a thread with you in it looking for serious and rational discussion.

but watch for this:

Thread coming soon: A Progressive, a Liberal, and a Leftist walk into a forum. by Dante

No, it's not serious and rational discussion. You said you are a liberal, you are not a leftist like the Democrats. I asked for positions that make you a liberal not a leftist, things you disagree with them on. You can't give me a single one. I asked for politicians who are liberal, not leftist, you can't name one.

And I asked who you would support for POTUS who is a liberal, not a leftist, you can't name one either. You're not serious at all, you're just shooting blanks.

The answer is you like the word liberal, you don't like the word leftists. Which is what I said to Wry, there is no difference, none. And neither of you can think of any.

QED, they are the same...

Wow, running away and hiding, very impressive....

Edit, sorry man, I was replying to your mention and I didn't realize you'd started a thread. I got it now. I'll review your note above.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION]

Oh yeah: Check Mate

No, it's not serious and rational discussion. You said you are a liberal, you are not a leftist like the Democrats. I asked for positions that make you a liberal not a leftist, things you disagree with them on. You can't give me a single one. I asked for politicians who are liberal, not leftist, you can't name one.

And I asked who you would support for POTUS who is a liberal, not a leftist, you can't name one either. You're not serious at all, you're just shooting blanks.

The answer is you like the word liberal, you don't like the word leftists. Which is what I said to Wry, there is no difference, none. And neither of you can think of any.

QED, they are the same...

Wow, running away and hiding, very impressive....

Edit, sorry man, I was replying to your mention and I didn't realize you'd started a thread. I got it now. I'll review your note above.

got it. Dante never runs away. His posting privileges are subject to prison rules

 

[kaz]

A Progressive (Bill Clinton), a Liberal (Barney Frank), and a Leftist (Dennis Kucinich) walk into a forum: They discuss an issue: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act


Progressive was in favor of bill and signed it into law. Now says it was a terrible decision and a regret (but may be saying it softened the blow -- who knows?): Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did

Liberal was against the bill and is one of a handful of members of the Congress to vote against it: Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Leftist: I have no idea what he said. He's been so far left I always check myself when finding we agree on something. - go figure

OK, I read it all. You still have three people who are authoritarian leftists who don't disagree on anything except one thing Clinton did, and you pointed out he said he was wrong. So at best your argument is that the difference between them is that while they have all the same positions, they tweak the priorities. Though you really had nothing on the difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist" even in that. And you said you are shocked when you agree with Kucinich while you still couldn't name anything you disagree with him on.

I do like the argument that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was bad because it allowed fraud, even though fraud was already illegal. So apparently if something is only illegal once that isn't enough, it has to be illegal twice for a law to work...

 

[KNB]

Does this discussion imply that Conservatives are in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Progressive (Bill Clinton), a Liberal (Barney Frank), and a Leftist (Dennis Kucinich) walk into a forum: They discuss an issue: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act


Progressive was in favor of bill and signed it into law. Now says it was a terrible decision and a regret (but may be saying it softened the blow -- who knows?): Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did

Liberal was against the bill and is one of a handful of members of the Congress to vote against it: Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Leftist: I have no idea what he said. He's been so far left I always check myself when finding we agree on something. - go figure

OK, I read it all. You still have three people who are authoritarian leftists who don't disagree on anything except one thing Clinton did, and you pointed out he said he was wrong. So at best your argument is that the difference between them is that while they have all the same positions, they tweak the priorities. Though you really had nothing on the difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist" even in that. And you said you are shocked when you agree with Kucinich while you still couldn't name anything you disagree with him on.

I do like the argument that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was bad because it allowed fraud, even though fraud was already illegal. So apparently if something is only illegal once that isn't enough, it has to be illegal twice for a law to work...

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] "authoritarian leftists"?????????

your speech in fraud is puzzling

Department of Peace

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does this discussion imply that Conservatives are in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall?

Huh?

 

[kaz]

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

No idea what this has to do with the discussion, they are not pursuing W because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for their crimes in Benghazi, fast and furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups. And then the next administration would pursue them, and so on.

I would welcome all of it. Pursue W for his crimes, let's get Obama for his. But you are seriously clueless, they are not pursuing it like none of them do for that reason, to protect themselves from their successors. You haven't supported anything with this pointless observation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

No idea what this has to do with the discussion, they are not pursuing W because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for their crimes in Benghazi, fast and furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups. And then the next administration would pursue them, and so on.

I would welcome all of it. Pursue W for his crimes, let's get Obama for his. But you are seriously clueless, they are not pursuing it like none of them do for that reason, to protect themselves from their successors. You haven't supported anything with this pointless observation.

Please try and keep up. In 2006 Bush was still President and Obama was...

try and keep up

and after Obama was in office, there was no way of knowing about the future things you list


try and keep up

 

[buckeye45_73]

Are all the same person.....good to know

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are all the same person.....good to know

[MENTION=30377]buckeye45_73[/MENTION]

running for Most Clueless @ USMB

 

[buckeye45_73]

Are all the same person.....good to know

[MENTION=30377]buckeye45_73[/MENTION]

running for Most Clueless @ USMB

Lol, come on now....they are the same and dont be ashamed of that, its ok

 

[buckeye45_73]

A Progressive (Bill Clinton), a Liberal (Barney Frank), and a Leftist (Dennis Kucinich) walk into a forum: They discuss an issue: Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act


Progressive was in favor of bill and signed it into law. Now says it was a terrible decision and a regret (but may b7e saying it softened the blow -- who knows?): Eight Progressive Things Bill Clinton Did

Liberal was against the bill and is one of a handful of members of the Congress to vote against it: Barney Frank didn?t cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Leftist: I have no idea what he said. He's been so far left I always check myself when finding we agree on something. - go figure

OK, I read it all. You still have three people who are authoritarian leftists who don't disagree on anything except one thing Clinton did, and you pointed out he said he was wrong. So at best your argument is that the difference between them is that while they have all the same positions, they tweak the priorities. Though you really had nothing on the difference between a "liberal" and a "leftist" even in that. And you said you are shocked when you agree with Kucinich while you still couldn't name anything you disagree with him on.

I do like the argument that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was bad because it allowed fraud, even though fraud was already illegal. So apparently if something is only illegal once that isn't enough, it has to be illegal twice for a law to work...

[MENTION=26616]kaz[/MENTION] "authoritarian leftists"?????????

your speech in fraud is puzzling

Department of Peace

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

They wanted to, but they didnt wanted the pr battle. Its like holder should have been removed, hes a racist and a complete baffoon, butthe republicans didnt hold hearings on his gross incompetance, like they should have

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

no hearings on Holder?

good bye

 

[kaz]

Like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (then US Senator) refused the left's demands to hold Issa type hearings in order to prosecute Bush/Cheney officials

No idea what this has to do with the discussion, they are not pursuing W because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for their crimes in Benghazi, fast and furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups. And then the next administration would pursue them, and so on.

I would welcome all of it. Pursue W for his crimes, let's get Obama for his. But you are seriously clueless, they are not pursuing it like none of them do for that reason, to protect themselves from their successors. You haven't supported anything with this pointless observation.

Please try and keep up. In 2006 Bush was still President and Obama was...

try and keep up

and after Obama was in office, there was no way of knowing about the future things you list


try and keep up

Nothing you said contradicted me

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No idea what this has to do with the discussion, they are not pursuing W because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for their crimes in Benghazi, fast and furious, the IRS targeting conservative groups. And then the next administration would pursue them, and so on.

I would welcome all of it. Pursue W for his crimes, let's get Obama for his. But you are seriously clueless, they are not pursuing it like none of them do for that reason, to protect themselves from their successors. You haven't supported anything with this pointless observation.

Please try and keep up. In 2006 Bush was still President and Obama was... "because then the next Republican administration would pursue them for" things that didn't happen yet.

try and keep up

and after Obama was in office, there was no way of knowing about the future things you list


try and keep up

Nothing you said contradicted me

you are making absolutely no sense here. Your stated reasons

 

[Kosh]

Anyone that views Bill Clinton as a progressive is definitely not in touch with reality.

 

[Mojo2]

Barney Frank

Right Wing Human Events lies through omission:

Top 10 Barney Frank Offenses | Human Events

1. Fannie and Freddie: As ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank blocked tightened oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying in 2003, “These two entities … are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” More than any other factor, the 2008 financial meltdown was caused by pushing these government-sponsored enterprises to encourage housing loans to risky borrowers. Thanks a lot, Barney.

Truth is: Frank was in the minority party in the US House when this stuff got crazy. Didn't get in control until 2007, after Bush and GOP along with many leading Dems pushed us over the cliff.

Chair of the House Financial Services Committee
In office
January 4, 2007 – January 3, 2011
Preceded by Mike Oxley

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[47] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[48] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[7]

In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[49] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[49] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing.

Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it.

"If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank.

In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[7]

Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[49] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[49] Frank stated further that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration's approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush's desk in July 2008. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[50]

Frank was smart in gettin while the gettin was good.

He left Congress before he could be censured or even tried for possible wrongdoing and malfeasance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo]Democrats were WARNED of Financial crisis and did NOTHING - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyqYY72PeRM]Democrats in their own words Covering up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac scandal - YouTube[/ame]