Itinerant Air-Cooled

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-2 ... en-up.html

Considering he was main man behind its repeal, I find this nothing short of amazing.

everybody knows who signed the repeal into law, right?

vdubyah73 wrote:everybody knows who signed the repeal into law, right?

why, is there more than one person who can?

i think at that level the potus signs or vetos.

vdubyah73 wrote:everybody knows who signed the repeal into law, right?

Bill Clinton.
Now that we have that out of the way, we should look at how the repeal came to the fore, and how it passed. Corporate lobbying, for example. This is no longer a Democrat/Republican issue, it is a status quo power vs desperate need for change issue.
Colin

Come on, Colin... if you won't allow us to blame one party or the other, then we have to actually become solution-oriented and do actual work to fix things.

That's unacceptable. If we can't fix it from the sofa using just the remote control, then it's the other political party's fault.

Sorry to resort to sarcasm to make my point, but I'm so dizzy from the merry-go-round of debates framed by partisan politics.

the glass steagle act, what it was about, and who repealed it are not common knowledge. the media started talking a little about it, first i recall hearing since this whole depression began, just this past week or so after weil went on record about his regret. people will be more pissed as more of the population understand the jist of it.

agreed the two sides need to meet in the middle. however the rosy picture of democrats being for the people is bs. both parties are about money and power. thats why i make sure people know about glass steagle. do you remember all the bank mergers and acquisitions(?) that were going on in the aughties? glass steagle prevented that, it kept investment banking, savings and loan banking and insurance all separate. the aughties were an orgy of money and greed.

crackpot statement:
i wonder if society is crumbling, i wonder if that is why societies opinions on gun control have, over the years, steadily changed from pro to con? i wonder if i will need one in the not to distant future. i'm gonna have to choose a new home state when i become a tinker.

I wonder what Clinton says of his prior action today?

Clintons opinion doesnt matter, it didn't then, and it means even less now. Clinton signed this bill without regard for his personal feelings, many very powerful men wanted this change to be made, and he had little if any choice in the matter. That's why I was so shocked about Sandy, because he was primary leader of the cabal to have it repealed.

I watched a special on PBS on the repeal and basically Sandy was head of Bank of America, and BOA wanted to buy JP Morgan or some other big investment firm but glass stegal made that illegal. So they got it repealed. The merger went thru, and everyone was happy, till the meltdown.

RSorak 71Westy wrote:basically Sandy was head of Bank of America, and BOA wanted to buy JP Morgan or some other big investment firm but glass stegal made that illegal. So they got it repealed. The merger went thru, and everyone was happy, till the meltdown.

Exactly . . . history is rarely executed in the name of fealty to priniciples, it is executed by a thousand and one little favors, little slights, little filches.
Colin

RSorak 71Westy wrote:
Considering he was main man behind its repeal, I find this nothing short of amazing.

And most significant. Is there anybody who's better qualified to comment on the issue? It takes guts to get up and say "I was wrong about this."

There's serious talk now about reinstating Glass-Steagall, but without Republican backing it ain't gonna happen. And AFAIK the Republican party line is still that banking needs less regulation, not more.

JLT wrote:AFAIK the Republican party line is still that banking needs less regulation, not more.

They are. It is amazing to watch.

Yeah, I was scouring the internet last night for good political blogs and came across the Drudge Report page. Half the stories are about de-regulating banks. They try to make some distinctions between one type of bank/banker and another, trying to make it sound like some banks are the good guys and referring to the "bad banks" as "shadow banks" and such. The whole thing was very unconvincing.