Newt says reinstate Glass Steagal


That took balls because the legislation that effectively neutralized it was the Republican introduced and passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

If Gramm Leach had not been passed, not one bank would have ever received a bailout. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have had any of our current problems but the fewer the better.
Now if the Repubs hadn't deregulated the banking industry and then securities industry, plus opened the loophole which allowed the credit-swaps instead of requiring Mortgage-Backed Securites to be eligible, we would have avoided the whole mess altogether. At least on the macro scale. There would still be thousands of adjustable, NINJA and 125% mortgages to deal with but that would be a small percantage of the debacle we're presently facing.

Oh and it wouldn't be a matter of reinstating Glass-Steagal, just repealing Gramm-Leach. Whatever the case, it shows some huge cajones for Gingrich to voice that! Wow! Kudos to Newto!
 
Last edited:

That took balls because the legislation that effectively neutralized it was the Republican introduced and passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

If Gramm Leach had not been passed, not one bank would have ever received a bailout. That doesn't mean we wouldn't have had any of our current problems but the fewer the better.
Now if the Repubs hadn't deregulated the banking industry and then securities industry, plus opened the loophole which allowed the credit-swaps instead of requiring Mortgage-Backed Securites to be eligible, we would have avoided the whole mess altogether. At least on the macro scale. There would still be thousands of adjustable, NINJA and 125% mortgages to deal with but that would be a small percantage of the debacle we're presently facing.

Oh and it wouldn't be a matter of reinstating Glass-Steagal, just repealing Gramm-Leach.

Out of curiousity, how did all those Republican Congressional bills become law?
 
Either reinstate it, or better yet - get rid of the FDIC. Banks will think twice about jeopardizing retail deposit funds if they weren't backed by the government.
 
Out of curiousity, how did all those Republican Congressional bills become law?

For fuck's sake, get rid of the partisan hackery, will ya? Can't we, JUST ONCE have a discussion on this board that addresses the issue presented, without slopping around in pointless and irrelevant finger pointing games?
 
Either reinstate it, or better yet - get rid of the FDIC. Banks will think twice about jeopardizing retail deposit funds if they weren't backed by the government.

No they won't. They'll still gamble just as readily, and let the account owners suffer the consequences.
 
Either reinstate it, or better yet - get rid of the FDIC. Banks will think twice about jeopardizing retail deposit funds if they weren't backed by the government.

No they won't. They'll still gamble just as readily, and let the account owners suffer the consequences.

No because consumers would be attracted to safer institutions where they wouldn't lose money. And if a couple institutions did fail I guarantee you consumers would be twice shy.
 
No because consumers would be attracted to safer institutions where they wouldn't lose money. And if a couple institutions did fail I guarantee you consumers would be twice shy.

Kinda like voters will be attracted to politicians who put the country before their partisanship? The consumers will continue to give their money because they'll have no other alternatives available.
 
Does this mean you will throw Newt under the bus?

No.

Frankly, I think it speaks well of him that after seeing the consequences of a law- incidently consequences no one forsaw at the time, as the repeal of G-S had bipartisan support - he calls for changing course.

ObamaCare is already having devastating effects on the economy, but you see the Dems pressing ahead.

Romney would be "Gee, I need to make more money so I can buy Mansion #5".

Cain would probably have a dumb look on his face like he didn't know what you were talking about.

Gingrich seems to understand the issue and the consequences.
 
Having two TYPES of banks seems like a prudent system.

Conservative retail banks with FDIC protections that cannot fail, and high risk commercial banks that are on their own if the fail.
 
Wrong direction.

Better to cancel all FDIC insurance and let the banker play with their own money and leave us out of it
 
Out of curiousity, how did all those Republican Congressional bills become law?

For fuck's sake, get rid of the partisan hackery, will ya? Can't we, JUST ONCE have a discussion on this board that addresses the issue presented, without slopping around in pointless and irrelevant finger pointing games?

Would be glad to have a discussion on Glass-Steagall but since the thread started with a 100% partisan tone you can't act surprised that it continued that way.

IMO, Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstalled. I don't care who reintroduces it and I don't care who passes it it just needs to happen.
 
Newt has shown some very solid centrist thinking with his support of Glass-Steagal.
 
No because consumers would be attracted to safer institutions where they wouldn't lose money. And if a couple institutions did fail I guarantee you consumers would be twice shy.

Kinda like voters will be attracted to politicians who put the country before their partisanship? The consumers will continue to give their money because they'll have no other alternatives available.

That's operating on quite an assumption. With transparency and without the govt guarantees from FDIC those banks that fail will pay the price while those with better reputations and a stronger standing will reap the benefits, that's how it should be in a truly free market.
 
That's operating on quite an assumption. With transparency and without the govt guarantees from FDIC those banks that fail will pay the price while those with better reputations and a stronger standing will reap the benefits, that's how it should be in a truly free market.

Again, like how the people vote for candidates who don't "fail" to deliver? You mean, like what happened in the 1920s?
 
That's operating on quite an assumption. With transparency and without the govt guarantees from FDIC those banks that fail will pay the price while those with better reputations and a stronger standing will reap the benefits, that's how it should be in a truly free market.

Again, like how the people vote for candidates who don't "fail" to deliver? You mean, like what happened in the 1920s?

Once again, the key is transparency. There's plenty of indicators available where people and agencies can accurately assess the health of a financial institution. That's of course without the effects of corruption and scandal, but with proper transparency and oversight the numbers won't lie.
 
Unfortunately it doesn't matter what Newt believes.

No GOP President can govern outside the mandates of movement conservatism, which has been captured by concentrated wealth.

If Newt becomes president, he will act like Bush out of necessity.

He will use National Security to move the economy off the front page . . . so that he can quietly turn government into an ATM for big business.

Newt and Mitt will use the Iranian threat to control the headlines and mobilize the Tea Party through fear.

People don't get. America was rolled under Bush. The country was looted. There is nothing left for any president to do but manage the long emergency of a bankrupt nation.
 
Last edited:
Newt is the smartest of the group... I like him more and more every day.

His palling around with Princess Pelosi still bothers me though, so Cain still has my attention so far.

I am proud of some of you for stepping towards the middle of the aisle, but for those of you who this applies to ..... I will NEVER vote for Obama! You know who you are (TdM)

So here is looking at ya kids :fu:





:lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top