If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   I'm not saying the banking collapse is all Clinton's fault. Someone else is   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 30
    More: Interesting, Sandy Weill, Citigroup, Squawk Box, FSMA, Volcker Rule, Glass-Steagall Act, running amok, laissez-faire  
•       •       •

1982 clicks; posted to Business » on 25 Jul 2012 at 3:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-25 02:12:14 PM
Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.
 
2012-07-25 02:30:12 PM
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a horrible piece of legislation, but that is no surprise considering that the king of idiots, Phil Gramm, was responsible for it.
 
2012-07-25 03:58:08 PM

vpb: Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.


It took awhile for all the banks to reorganize into even bigger conglomerates and then move forward with making the truly shiatty business decisions that Glass-Steagall was in place for 66 years to minimize the damage of.

To be fair, there were many who realized this was a shiatty idea in 1999, but they got outvoted.

Also...and someone correct me if I'm wrong here...didn't it pass with enough votes that a presidential veto could easily have been overridden? I realize this was a primarily Republican-led fark up, but there are enough Dems with dirt on their hands in this.
 
2012-07-25 04:00:47 PM
Barney Frank. And that prissy bastard will never take responsibility and it is homophobic to dare criticize him/it.
 
2012-07-25 04:05:33 PM

lordaction: Barney Frank. And that prissy bastard will never take responsibility and it is homophobic to dare criticize him/it.


Um. Ok. He totally made the GOP controlled house and senate his biatch, then. He made them look spineless, pathetic and utterly incapable of stopping his agenda. That gay liberal man had more power than the Hammer (Delay) and all the rest of them put together. Wow. That is awesome.
 
2012-07-25 04:10:52 PM

Nadie_AZ: That gay liberal man had more power than the Hammer (Delay) and all the rest of them put together. Wow. That is awesome.


And you know what? I am not gay (I think) but if I were that would almost be enough to make me want to do him. Just thinking about him making all those repressed self hating GOP secret homosexuals his biatches. God, if I were gay, that would just be so, well, hot. But I'm not.

/no really
 
2012-07-25 04:17:37 PM

Dog Welder: Also...and someone correct me if I'm wrong here...didn't it pass with enough votes that a presidential veto could easily have been overridden?


Pretty much. From Wikipedia:

upload.wikimedia.org

90 votes for Gramm-Leach-Bliley and 8 votes against in the Senate.
362 for and 57 votes against in the House
 
2012-07-25 04:26:12 PM
smimmy -- I thought as much, but I didn't remember the margins as being that big.

Lots of people should feel bad about what they did at this point, but I'm betting they're swimming in sick amounts of lobbyist money and really don't give a fark about the damage they've caused.
 
2012-07-25 04:56:17 PM

vpb: Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.


$$$$$$
 
2012-07-25 05:02:48 PM
I'm not sure if it's ironic that Sandy Weill, former Chairman of Citigroup, is advocating for breaking up the big banks.
 
2012-07-25 05:36:47 PM

Arkanaut: I'm not sure if it's ironic that Sandy Weill, former Chairman of Citigroup, is advocating for breaking up the big banks.


He's made all the money he can make from the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and he's now trying to pig-pile on the whole "responsible business recovery" idea - which will, of course, net him more money. He's terrified that folks will remember that assholes like him, the "Shatterer of Glass-Steagall," caused this mess in the first place, by exploiting all the shiny new loopholes opened up by the loss of Glass-Steagall.

He's like a bomber that, after blowing up a building, grabs a broom and pretends to pitch in on the cleanup, just so people will see he's actually "there to help" and never suspect that he's the guy who detonated the blast in the first place.
 
2012-07-25 05:38:33 PM
Yes, Clinton's absured right-wing policies helped spark the disaster. Glad we all agree.
 
2012-07-25 05:49:08 PM

vpb: Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.


It just took that long to build the bubbles. It's pretty easy to ignore the danger when your investments appear to be skyrocketing.
 
2012-07-25 06:45:32 PM
God I miss the Clinton years.
 
2012-07-25 07:22:42 PM

Dog Welder: Also...and someone correct me if I'm wrong here...didn't it pass with enough votes that a presidential veto could easily have been overridden? I realize this was a primarily Republican-led fark up, but there are enough Dems with dirt on their hands in this.


Voting for the legislation and voting to override a veto are two different things. People might be more inclined to fall behind party lines if a veto override vote comes up.
 
2012-07-25 07:29:47 PM

vpb: Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.


No, most Democrats voted for it, too. Lower percentage, but still a very high percentage. It was a bipartisan effort.

Dog Welder: To be fair, there were many who realized this was a shiatty idea in 1999, but they got outvoted.

Also...and someone correct me if I'm wrong here...didn't it pass with enough votes that a presidential veto could easily have been overridden? I realize this was a primarily Republican-led fark up, but there are enough Dems with dirt on their hands in this.


Many being about 1/5th of Congress. Clinton should have vetoed it on principle, regardless of bipartisan support for the bill and a very high percentage of an override.
 
2012-07-25 08:19:08 PM
www.charlierose.com
I brokered the deal, Bill hired me to put him in office and I did, while selling out anything the DNC had to offer or ever stood for. I taught the donkey to throat.
 
2012-07-25 08:23:55 PM
Aliens.
 
2012-07-25 08:38:20 PM

bhcompy: Clinton should have vetoed it on principle, regardless of bipartisan support for the bill and a very high percentage of an override.


I sort of have the same feeling, but there's idealism and then there's realpolitik. It's hard to say what he should have done without having been in the White House with him. He may have needed to spend his political capital elsewhere.
 
2012-07-25 10:02:20 PM

SilentStrider: vpb: Not in this article. Clinton did support it, but most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal and most Republicans voted for it, but that was 1999.

I do wonder how the crisis managed to brew for 8 years without anyone realizing that deregulating investment banking was a bad idea.

$$$$$$




Come on seriously? Obvious answer is obvious. They DID know, but the $$$ involved for themselves and their contributors out weighed any farks they might have given in the first place. Something along the line of hey if we do X will we make boatloads of cash, if yes then do it regardless of possible repercussions for OTHER people.
 
2012-07-25 10:20:57 PM
84% of Senate Democrats voted to kill Glass Steagall and 75% of House Democrats voted to kill Glass-Steagall and Clinton signed it into law, yet there is always going to be this idiot...

vpb: most Democrats in congress voted against the repeal


How many times do both parties have to work together to fark over everyone who isn't obscenely wealthy before Americans wake the fark up?

This was the same time period when both parties worked together to kill Brooksley Borne's efforts to regulate the Deriviatives market which was a larger cause of the last financial crisis than mortgages.

This was also the same period when the bipartisan NAFTA allowed the obscenely wealthy to start moving manufacturing jobs out of the United States without any sort of financial penalty.

Then we have the most recent example where both parties worked together to make it legal to toss citizens into military prisons without charges or a trial.

Seriously, stop being so freaking stupid. The rich own both parties.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-07-25 10:44:47 PM
TFA: In a remarkable policy shift, former Citigroup chairman and chief executive Sandy Weill now thinks that Wall Street should break up its big banks... Weill essentially called for the return of the Glass-Steagall Act

It's worth mentioning that Glass Steagall was killed so that Citibank could merge with Travellers Group. Sandy Weill was the CEO of Travelers and John Reed was the CEO of Citibank when they decided to have Glass Steagall killed.

John Reed has also publicly called for the reinstatement of Glass Steagall recently.

Bill Moyers on PBS:
There's no clearer example of the collusion between government and finance than the deal that created Citigroup in the first place.

At a standing room only press conference in April 1998, Sandy Weill, head of the investment bank and insurance company Travelers group, and John Reed, the longtime CEO of the commercial bank Citicorp, announced a gigantic, $140 billion merger.

Just one problem: the merger flew in the face of this law.

You're looking at the Banking Act of 1933, also known as Glass-Steagall. Glass Steagall was enacted during the Great Depression to prevent investment banks from ever again gambling with people's life savings, as they had before the market crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall protected us against a repeat of that calamity for seventy years. It's a little bitty thing -- just 37 pages -- for the big job it did for us.

Glass-Steagall was still in force when Travelers and Citicorp went ahead with their merger. What made them think they could get away with it? Well, they had friends in high places. Friends who helped them exploit a loophole giving them two years to get rid of Glass-Steagall.

Among those friends, the laissez-faire, libertarian chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan; the right-wing Republican Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, who once called Wall Street "a holy place," and later would become a high priest at the global banking giant, UBS; and the democratic Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, former co-chair of Goldman Sachs and tireless advocate of taking down Glass-Steagall. In the weeks before its repeal Rubin left government to join, are you ready for this, Citigroup's board, the very financial giant made possible by Glass-Steagall's elimination.

And so it was - the fix was in, the path was cleared all the way to the top.

JOHN REED: Sandy called his friend the President last night and invited me to join in on the conversation and we had a good talk. So the President was in fact told last evening about what was going to happen.

BILL MOYERS: You got that, I'm sure. Wall Street was telling the President of the United States what was going to happen.


Within two years, Glass-Steagall was deader than a doornail. With the stroke of a pen, President Bill Clinton signed legislation that eliminated its protections and gave Citigroup the green light.

John Reed retired from Citigroup a year later, after losing out in a power struggle with Sandy Weill. He went on to serve as interim CEO of the New York Stock Exchange and now chairs the board at MIT. As Wall Street collapsed in 2008, Reed watched in disbelief, and began to have second thoughts about it all including the wisdom of repealing Glass-Steagall.


This is an excellent interview and I highly recommend everyone watch. Here's the money quote as far as Glass Steagall:

BILL MOYERS: You testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee, you came out in support of what we call the Volcker Rule. For the layman, what is the Volcker Rule and why do you support it?

JOHN REED: The rule simply says, "If you have a customer who wants to issue a bond, you could help him. But you can't trade in the bond market for your own account."

And so what the rule does is it basically puts the banks back into the customer business and allows the Wall Street community to be in the pure trading and the business of speculation and hedge funds and so forth. And it separates those.

BILL MOYERS: Sounds to me like you're calling the Glass-Steagall Act back from the grave.

JOHN REED: I think I am.


I think this comment from Bill Moyers is the money quote for the entire show:

I think you've taken us to a very fundamental issue that's roiling the country at the moment. And it is that this is an-- democracy is no longer a level playing field or even approximately a level playing field. The big institutions have so much money that they can flood into the system.

The obscenely wealthy own both political parties and have since the 90's.
 
2012-07-26 01:23:24 AM

FormlessOne: Arkanaut: I'm not sure if it's ironic that Sandy Weill, former Chairman of Citigroup, is advocating for breaking up the big banks.

He's made all the money he can make from the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and he's now trying to pig-pile on the whole "responsible business recovery" idea - which will, of course, net him more money. He's terrified that folks will remember that assholes like him, the "Shatterer of Glass-Steagall," caused this mess in the first place, by exploiting all the shiny new loopholes opened up by the loss of Glass-Steagall.

He's like a bomber that, after blowing up a building, grabs a broom and pretends to pitch in on the cleanup, just so people will see he's actually "there to help" and never suspect that he's the guy who detonated the blast in the first place.


Don't forget 'sticking it to Jamie Dimon one last time'.
 
2012-07-26 01:52:59 AM

Arkanaut: I'm not sure if it's ironic that Sandy Weill, former Chairman of Citigroup, is advocating for breaking up the big banks.


It makes him look good, even if no one listens to him (we should listen to him).

I'm REALLY surprised David Rockefeller hasn't said the same thing, as he made a big deal out of how great the repeal was for everything in his memoirs, and made it clear he saw it thorugh.

But, he's 90-something now, so he may just be wondering if it's pudding o'clock yet.
 
2012-07-26 05:58:23 AM
Why are we fighting over who is at fault for a mistake.

Fix the mistake.
 
2012-07-26 08:08:28 AM

I sound fat: Why are we fighting over who is at fault for a mistake.

Fix the mistake.


You just don't seem to understand how politics works do you? The idea is to crush the other side into the dust.
 
2012-07-26 04:46:41 PM
Just to remind everyone who seems to forget this every 4 years - CONGRESS passes the laws, not the President. Clinton signed it, but he had no choice, since an overwhelming % of both houses of Congress voted for it. They could have over-ridden a veto in the blink of en eye.

So if you're looking for someone to blame - your reps/senators is where to start, not the President. If you insist on using this to affect your views of Presidential candidates, then look where the money is coming from and who it's going to. Both sides get plenty, but the Republican members of Congress and especially Republican Presidential candidates get more $ from the financial institutions that were pushing hard for the repeal of Glass-Steagal
 
2012-07-26 04:54:55 PM

cefm: Just to remind everyone who seems to forget this every 4 years - CONGRESS passes the laws, not the President. Clinton signed it, but he had no choice, since an overwhelming % of both houses of Congress voted for it. They could have over-ridden a veto in the blink of en eye.

So if you're looking for someone to blame - your reps/senators is where to start, not the President. If you insist on using this to affect your views of Presidential candidates, then look where the money is coming from and who it's going to. Both sides get plenty, but the Republican members of Congress and especially Republican Presidential candidates get more $ from the financial institutions that were pushing hard for the repeal of Glass-Steagal


He had a choice to protest it and force an override. He didn't. He's as culpable as the rest of them.
 
2012-07-26 09:03:49 PM
So the fact that Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all diligently served the interests of Wall Street and gone against he interests of the people time after time don't really matter?

Clinton was not forced into this. He pushed for it. He was just as owned by the rich as the rest of the politicians.

Hell, watch the Frontline PBS four hour special, Money Power and Wall Street and you'll see part of the ceremony where Clinton killed the "outdated" Glass-Steagall act and ensured that our economy would collapse over and over just as it had before Glass-Steagall was put into place.

His arm wasn't being twisted. He spoke in favor of killing Glass-Steagall.

Quit lying to make excuses for corrupt politicians.
 
2012-07-27 11:38:26 AM

cefm: Just to remind everyone who seems to forget this every 4 years - CONGRESS passes the laws, not the President. Clinton signed it, but he had no choice, since an overwhelming % of both houses of Congress voted for it. They could have over-ridden a veto in the blink of en eye.


Reality disagrees.

dl.dropbox.com
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report