Not to pick nits, but the financial crisis began, in large measure, in 1999 with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act. Financial crises are not hiccups in time, they are protracted diseases caused by a lack of preventative medicine. Monetary policy is often (usually) a coconspirator.
Yes. If memory serves, Citibank and Traveler’s Insurance consumated their merger even before G-L-B was signed—putting them in technical violation of Glass-Steagall—almost as if they had gotten a wink and a nod from “Billy Cigars” Clinton.
Glass-Steagall was basically dead by 1999. I’m too bored to go over the history right now, but it’s a totem. The CFMA, which Bernie voted for twice by the way, had way more to do with the collapse than Glass-Steagall neutering. Bear Sterns, AIG, and Lehman’s issues, for example, would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall.
Note: I’m not saying Glass-Steagall shouldn’t be brought back.
If by that you mean it atrophied from lack of use, I agree (and yes, CFMA was also a stinker). But Sandy Weill and Larry Summers aren’t rich because they ask for stuff they don’t find useful.
On target WO. The rescission of Glass-Steagall was accomplished under the Clinton DINO administration and his chosen Rubinite economic team Obama predictably and immediately recycled (six of them) as his own - it was no mistake the complicit red queen chose DINO wall st shill Kaine as VP…the scum rise to the top…
The political power the banker/wall st parasites had then, and have now in spades, shows why their sycophants in both parties must be challenged and run out on a rail - them all, along with ending “corporate personhood” and reversing the disastrous “Citizens United” sellout decision! When that great day comes (if ever) and there is a progressive/radical shift in Congress, a new bank regulation & break-up must be passed! The death-knell of vulture capitalism, TBTF banker parasite thieves will sound, and the modern serfdom, wage & interest/debt slavery of the 99% will end…I know, pipe dreams, but I can hope.
Whenever I hear of yet another Wall Street Goldman-Sachs scum with a “Wall Street perspective and Wall Street sympathies” that serve wealth and profits over people and sustainable future, attaining government economic power for their “noblesse oblige” trickle-down rubbish I want to see them all breaking rocks for life…or worse!
Not even atrophied, basically dead via successive court rulings and regulatory decisions going back to the 80s. I really do think progressives made way too much of Glass-Steagall, particularly Bernie, who voted twice for the law that had way more of a bearing on the crisis. But he’s a politician, a good one.
Please don’t paint Bernie as some kind of purist. His votes on GLB were wrong, as were many of his votes.
He’s wrong to remain essentially a Democrat as well.
And we should vote for Democrats in the upcoming November election because…?
Recall it was Congressional Democrats that passed the 2008 bailouts when they should have put failed banks under gubmit control, nursed them back to health and sold them, like the gubmit did in 1976 when it created Conrail, thereby putting six bankrupt railroads under gubmit control, nursing Conrail back to health, turning it into a publicly traded corporation and selling it to Norfolk Southern and CSX.
Railroading is inherently much more complex than banking, so there is no excuse for what the Democrats did in 2008, despite all the fake news about saving the exonomy by wasting trillions of taxpayers’ money on bailouts.
It was a cinch for the GOP to take over the House in 2010 since the GOP could honestly claim thayt they did not vote for the bankster bailouts.
Schumer and Pelosi both have played the political con game of voting against legislation for the sake of their voting record, but then refusing to use their role as whips to keep their traitorous Republican members in line. Their abdication of leadership when it’s most needed is all too predictable.
My point is he ain’t no purist and that was all politics on his part to scream about Glass-Steagall. He did a good job blabbering over his own role in voting for the CFMA, twice, which had way way more to do with the crisis than Glass-Steagall repeal. None of his progressive caucus colleagues voted for it, nor did several progressive Senators, Paul Wellstone being the most prominent.
More to the point, there’s a reason why these “smaller” banks want to lift the cap and get away from the Volker Rule. It’s because the Obama sellout legislation we all hate is working as it should.
Schumer is a goddamn disgrace and sellout agent for big-money (and Israel) over the vast majority of Americans and American foreign policy interests!
He (along with the rest of the quisling scum) needs to be challenged and run out for his utter failures and subversive betrayals - a smarmy dog! - the DINO dem party is run by sellouts on this BS “deregulation” bank bill as in so many other issues!
With an “opposition” like the DP who needs the trump regime to screw and endanger us all!?
What can Chuck Schumer do to make Jon Tester not vote the way he’s decided to vote and has voted in committee? Take his Chair? Sixteen caucus members are with McConnell on this—Schumer shouldn’t be s scapegoat for their shitty, willful decision. This ain’t magic.
It’s Schumer’s job as Senate leader to push for a unified stance on votes. To sit back and not push on issues that cost the oligarchy bottom line is the all too familiar lack of leadership that has given us such a pathetic excuse for a party.
BS! What would have LBJ done? Rip the sellout betrayers a new one - the smarmy simp doesn’t have either the integrity, moral compass, or courage! Schumer is a tool of big-money - an entrenched sellout in so many ways and he should be called on it!
LBJ wasn’t magic and he was working with a filibuster proof 69 seat Senate majority and 295 seat House majority. You are talking nonsense. The progressive yell-at-people theory of governance.
And people around here told you he wasn’t a purist time and again. To us actual purists, he was merely the best choice among shit choices–something you nose holders constantly tell us should be our go to voting strategy.
You also constantly told us that Bernie was too liberal, and that his liberal policies were pipe dreams that would never pass anyway.
So which is Bernie: The guy who just plays insider politics, or the guy who’s too liberal?
Wall street sycophants;In addition to Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), 16 Democrats joined a unified Republican caucus in approving the so-called “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act”: Michael Bennet (Col.), Tom Carper (Del.), Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Doug Jones (Ala.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mont.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.).
You should refer to him as “Anti-Choice, Pro-Gun, Pro-Coal Democrat, Connor Lamb.”
Because a party shouldn’t have any litmus teats. Or stand for anything at all, apparently.
I never said Bernie was too liberal. I did acknowledge the reality that in several of the caucus states he won, “his” voters told pollsters they were going for Trump in the general and were just voting against HRC.