Sens. John McCain and Elizabeth Warren push to re-instate Glass-Steagall

So Glass-Steagall, which was repealled in 1999 by Bill Clinton (arguably his biggest mistake while in office), used to keep commercial banks and investment banks sepperate. The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession. 

Now there is a bipartisan push to get the law back on the books, and frankly I think it would be a huge deal. Doesn't matter what party they resided in, I would vote for the people who voted to put this law back in place. I feel like this is one of the few things Congress is working on with true substance, and I was quite surprised/delighted today to see this happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/warren-joins-mccain-to-push-new-glass-steagall-bill-for-banks.html

Anyways do you agree with my assessment? If not why because I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

jimkabrhel

i don't see it happening. who do you think is paying for all these senators' campaigns? comp_atkins

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see it happening. who do you think is paying for all these senators' campaigns? capaho

The interesting thing to me is that these are not small time people in the Senate supporting this, both are big names.

[QUOTE="capaho"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see it happening. who do you think is paying for all these senators' campaigns? Serraph105

The interesting thing to me is that these are not small time people in the Senate supporting this, both are big names.

Serraph105

John McCain went nutty for awhile with the Benghazi incident, but he seem back to a leadership role and attempting compromise. This was the man that interested me in the 2008 election before Sarah Palin.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

Serraph105

The House's idea of immigration reform is to build the biggest, most expensive wall on the border and arm guards on it to the teeth.  A lot of House Republicans have already said that any immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship is a non-starter, which is pretty much the point of immigration reform to begin with.  Nevermind that Senate Democrats already gave up a lot of ground on putting money into securing the border, the House wants even more going to that cause and absolutely none of the Democratic provisions to pass.  They want to have their cake and eat it too, we're just going to have to wait until next year and see if people actually call them on their obstructionism.

I can support that.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

The House's idea of immigration reform is to build the biggest, most expensive wall on the border and arm guards on it to the teeth.  A lot of House Republicans have already said that any immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship is a non-starter, which is pretty much the point of immigration reform to begin with.  Nevermind that Senate Democrats already gave up a lot of ground on putting money into securing the border, the House wants even more going to that cause and absolutely none of the Democratic provisions to pass.  They want to have their cake and eat it too, we're just going to have to wait until next year and see if people actually call them on their obstructionism.

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]i don't see it happening. who do you think is paying for all these senators' campaigns? capaho

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Bipartisanship seems to be happening in the Senate. Not in the House. It's a great idea, but nothing will happen. Immigration reform is a great idea right now and that won't amount to anything either. 

DroidPhysX

As if Wall street is going to stand by and let this bill pass. 

They're already telling CNN/MSNBC/Fox News to start their smear campaign and lobbying house members against it. 

Possibility of this ever passing? 0%

We deregulated the banks and now they are too strong we can't do anything against them.

We deregulated the banks and now they are too strong we can't do anything against them.

Bigboss232

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

lostrib

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

lostrib

Yeah, they both agree to bury it to not piss of their campaign donors. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

mattbbpl

says their's a bipartisan group

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

lostrib

says their's a bipartisan group

iirc, mccain pushed campaign finance reform w/ feingold before it was struck down by scotus (which i think may have been the primary factor as to why numerous major corporations and banks that supported romney in 2012 did not support mccain just four years earlier, but supported obama), so this isn't too surprising on the part of mccain and i wouldn't expect much in the way bipartisanship. hopefully it makes it through, but i'm not holding my breath.

Good. Hopefully it passes.

It never should have been repealed to begin with. After the savings and loan scandal, the government should have known that banks couldn't be trusted. They should also never have let banks merge they way they did. That is when the service that banks provided went downhill and it's still in the crapper.

So Glass-Steagall, which was repealled in 1999 by Bill Clinton (arguably his biggest mistake while in office), used to keep commercial banks and investment banks sepperate. The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession. 

Now there is a bipartisan push to get the law back on the books, and frankly I think it would be a huge deal. Doesn't matter what party they resided in, I would vote for the people who voted to put this law back in place. I feel like this is one of the few things Congress is working on with true substance, and I was quite surprised/delighted today to see this happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/warren-joins-mccain-to-push-new-glass-steagall-bill-for-banks.html

 

Anyways do you agree with my assessment? If not why because I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

Serraph105

that is incorrect.

-the bankers intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

-then when the shit hit the fan they asked the fed to print off the money, to pay them back, for the loaned money they couldn't get back ("bailout")

-while, at the same time, repossessing everything from those indebted to them.

-and used that fed money to buy up everything that everyone else lost from the domino effect

-and then they owned everything while merging with the government when GWB signed the bill for america to become a socialist country.

so now the government is the bank and the bank is the government - they are one. so it's no wonder they want to sign the law back into effect. because if they can do this they will take over all the other non-fed banks by default. so i say no, don't let them pass this bill. (terrible idea)

john mccain is a fvcking communist as well. screw that lying bullsh!tter. it's people like him that are screwing up america.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

So Glass-Steagall, which was repealled in 1999 by Bill Clinton (arguably his biggest mistake while in office), used to keep commercial banks and investment banks sepperate. The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession. 

Now there is a bipartisan push to get the law back on the books, and frankly I think it would be a huge deal. Doesn't matter what party they resided in, I would vote for the people who voted to put this law back in place. I feel like this is one of the few things Congress is working on with true substance, and I was quite surprised/delighted today to see this happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/warren-joins-mccain-to-push-new-glass-steagall-bill-for-banks.html

 

Anyways do you agree with my assessment? If not why because I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

buccomatic

that is incorrect.

-the bankers intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

-then when the shit hit the fan they asked the fed to print off the money, to pay them back, for the loaned money they couldn't get back ("bailout")

-while, at the same time, repossessing everything from those indebted to them.

-and used that fed money to buy up everything that everyone else lost from the domino effect

-and then they owned everything while merging with the government when GWB signed the bill for america to become a socialist country.

so now the government is the bank and the bank is the government - they are one. so it's no wonder they want to sign the law back into effect. because if they can do this they will take over all the other non-fed banks by default. so i say no, don't let them pass this bill. (terrible idea)

john mccain is a fvcking communist as well. screw that lying bullsh!tter. it's people like him that are screwing up america.

you know what this reminds me of?

that we just solved a bubble that lead to a huge collapse by creating an even bigger bubble.

go ahead, look at how the stock market is surging right now.

"The Dow Jones industrial average and Standard & Poors 500 surged to all-time highs."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/11/stocks-surge-on-Bernanke/

we did not learn one damn thing from this and are currently setting ourselves up for an even bigger fall.

you know what this reminds me of?

that we just solved a bubble that lead to a huge collapse by creating an even bigger bubble.

go ahead, look at how the stock market is surging right now.

"The Dow Jones industrial average and Standard & Poors 500 surged to all-time highs."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/11/stocks-surge-on-Bernanke/

we did not learn one damn thing from this and are currently setting ourselves up for an even bigger fall.

Riverwolf007

See my previous statements regarding the savings and loan scandal where the banks were bailed out then due to bad management. 

you know what this reminds me of?

that we just solved a bubble that lead to a huge collapse by creating an even bigger bubble.

go ahead, look at how the stock market is surging right now.

"The Dow Jones industrial average and Standard & Poors 500 surged to all-time highs."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Jul/11/stocks-surge-on-Bernanke/

we did not learn one damn thing from this and are currently setting ourselves up for an even bigger fall.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="buccomatic"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

So Glass-Steagall, which was repealled in 1999 by Bill Clinton (arguably his biggest mistake while in office), used to keep commercial banks and investment banks sepperate. The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession. 

Now there is a bipartisan push to get the law back on the books, and frankly I think it would be a huge deal. Doesn't matter what party they resided in, I would vote for the people who voted to put this law back in place. I feel like this is one of the few things Congress is working on with true substance, and I was quite surprised/delighted today to see this happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/warren-joins-mccain-to-push-new-glass-steagall-bill-for-banks.html

 

Anyways do you agree with my assessment? If not why because I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

mattbbpl

that is incorrect.

-the bankers intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

-then when the shit hit the fan they asked the fed to print off the money, to pay them back, for the loaned money they couldn't get back ("bailout")

-while, at the same time, repossessing everything from those indebted to them.

-and used that fed money to buy up everything that everyone else lost from the domino effect

-and then they owned everything while merging with the government when GWB signed the bill for america to become a socialist country.

so now the government is the bank and the bank is the government - they are one. so it's no wonder they want to sign the law back into effect. because if they can do this they will take over all the other non-fed banks by default. so i say no, don't let them pass this bill. (terrible idea)

john mccain is a fvcking communist as well. screw that lying bullsh!tter. it's people like him that are screwing up america.

Didn't know S&P was a bank and not a credit rating agency. Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]"The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession."

 

that is incorrect.

 

-the bankers intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

 

-then when the shit hit the fan they asked the fed to print off the money, to pay them back, for the loaned money they couldn't get back ("bailout")

 

-while, at the same time, repossessing everything from those indebted to them.

 

-and used that fed money to buy up everything that everyone else lost from the domino effect

 

-and then they owned everything while merging with the government when GWB signed the bill for america to become a socialist country.

 

so now the government is the bank and the bank is the government - they are one. so it's no wonder they want to sign the law back into effect. because if they can do this they will take over all the other non-fed banks by default. so i say no, don't let them pass this bill. (terrible idea)

 

john mccain is a fvcking communist as well. screw that lying bullsh!tter. it's people like him that are screwing up america.

SpartanMSU

Didn't know S&P was a bank and not a credit rating agency. Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] That's quite an imagination you have there. Before your post goes completely off the rails, you missed a critical point between your first and second bullet points: Banks sold the toxic loans as fraudulent AAA rated securities. This is what allowed the whole thing to balloon and what Glass-Steagall would have prevented.mattbbpl

Didn't know S&P was a bank and not a credit rating agency. Thanks for the info.

S&P gave those MBS AAA ratings, not banks, which is what you said...

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

Didn't know S&P was a bank and not a credit rating agency. Thanks for the info.

SpartanMSU

S&P gave those MBS AAA ratings, not banks, which is what you said...

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] I never said it was. Do you have a point you'd like to make?mattbbpl

S&P gave those MBS AAA ratings, not banks, which is what you said...

Actually they didn't. Most went through agencies such as Fannie/Freddie.

And yes, you meant banks packaged and sold those loans and falsely labeled them AAA. 

So Glass-Steagall, which was repealled in 1999 by Bill Clinton (arguably his biggest mistake while in office), used to keep commercial banks and investment banks sepperate. The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession.

Now there is a bipartisan push to get the law back on the books, and frankly I think it would be a huge deal. Doesn't matter what party they resided in, I would vote for the people who voted to put this law back in place. I feel like this is one of the few things Congress is working on with true substance, and I was quite surprised/delighted today to see this happening.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/warren-joins-mccain-to-push-new-glass-steagall-bill-for-banks.html

Anyways do you agree with my assessment? If not why because I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

Serraph105

But it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagal, not Bush.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="buccomatic"]"The repeal of the law was a huge part of what led to the culture of risky investments made by Wall Street which helped us into the position of taking a nose dive into the current economic recession."

that is incorrect.

-the bankers intentionally gave loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

-then when the shit hit the fan they asked the fed to print off the money, to pay them back, for the loaned money they couldn't get back ("bailout")

-while, at the same time, repossessing everything from those indebted to them.

-and used that fed money to buy up everything that everyone else lost from the domino effect

-and then they owned everything while merging with the government when GWB signed the bill for america to become a socialist country.

so now the government is the bank and the bank is the government - they are one. so it's no wonder they want to sign the law back into effect. because if they can do this they will take over all the other non-fed banks by default. so i say no, don't let them pass this bill. (terrible idea)

john mccain is a fvcking communist as well. screw that lying bullsh!tter. it's people like him that are screwing up america.

SpartanMSU

Didn't know S&P was a bank and not a credit rating agency. Thanks for the info.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

The interesting thing to me is that these are not small time people in the Senate supporting this, both are big names.

jimkabrhel

John McCain went nutty for awhile with the Benghazi incident, but he seem back to a leadership role and attempting compromise. This was the man that interested me in the 2008 election before Sarah Palin.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

Always something to pay attention to if both parties are in agreement on something

mattbbpl

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

The interesting thing to me is that these are not small time people in the Senate supporting this, both are big names.

whipassmt

John McCain went nutty for awhile with the Benghazi incident, but he seem back to a leadership role and attempting compromise. This was the man that interested me in the 2008 election before Sarah Palin.