Posted on 07/20/2016 8:48:11 AM PDT by b4its2late
"We"? That's group think. Probably better for everyone to research and come to their own conclusions.
Partially.
The other issue is the Community Reinvestment Act, where the fedgov forced banks to make 'affirmative action loans' (aka subprime mortgages) to people who could not qualify for a standard mortgage.
Funny how no one ever talks about repealing the CRA ...
Fractional Reserve banking is a grift and a con upon the stupid. It is theft and it is embezzlement. This fellow simplifies it enough for Joe Sixpack to get riled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeJpQQt_b8c
It’s only on the table. Why get upset (show your hand) when nothing has occurred.
Almost....
The Gramm(R)-Leach(R)-Bliley(R) Act which gave legitimacy to the (then illegal) Citi/Travelers merger is what effectively repealed Glass-Segall. Slick and Treas. Sec Rubin lobbied heavily for its passage. One week after GLB passed, Rubin resigned Treas. and less than a month later was employed at Citi.
Pretty much.
The whining by the larger shops can be discounted — even in the “bad ole days” (from the perspective of the bankers) the big boys were owned at a holding company level and had separate companies underneath the holding co. One would be a depository institution; a completely different company would be an investment banking house/securities broker-dealer.
The point was, that there was a firewall between the geniuses on the investment side and the federally insured money on the bank side. Once you blew that firewall down and mixed in the toxic brew of crap mortgage loans, the securities that bundled them, and added the swaps, repos, and reverse repos into the mix, things got really bad when the market turned sideways.
These guys whining about the US not being a money center anymore is a load of crap.
we agree.
I agree.
Remember after the 2009 meltdown we heard politicians promising to fix the problem with banks that were "too big to fail"?
Well - they never fixed it and in fact, they allowed (helped?) their sugar-daddy financial institutions and supporters get even bigger.
YUP....that also
There were many wheels within wheels turning
Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall essentially allowed banks to gamble away people's savings and deposits by investing in high-risk securities, and was one of the principal causes underlying the 2008 financial collapse. Moreover, allowing banks to invest savings in high risk securities makes it more or less necessary for the government to guarantee the loans, meaning that taxpayers are inevitably made responsible for bailing out the banks' losses (hence TARP and "too big to fail").
It was Bill Clinton that got rid of Glass Steagall. Should have never happened.
He WANTED to get rid of it...but it was REPUBLICANS that made it happen.
-PJ
Glass-Steagall was a sensible restriction. If banks want out of Glass-Steagall, then they should also be disqualified from FDIC or bailouts such as we saw under Hank Paulson and his ObaMaoite allies.
Unfortunately, the banks seem to want capitalist profits and socialized losses, and thanks to their lobbying, Glass-Steagall was repealled while Federally guaranteed bailouts remained.
Your proposal makes perfect sense: any bank with Federally guaranteed loans must be subject to Glass-Steagall, and anyone who wants secure deposits can choose to take their business to such a bank. Those banks who want to be exempt from Glass-Steagall will also be exempt from any Federal bailouts if they gamble away their money on high risk securities. Such banks should be required to inform all of their clients that their loans are not Federally guaranteed.
Maybe GOP lawmakers need to be blindsided more often.
Trump is calling this one correctly.
Trump supporters need to get constitutionallly low-information Trump up to speed on the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.
More specifically, note that the Glass Steagall Act became law the first year that Constituton-ignoring FDR became president, and regardless what FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), please consider the following.
The delegates to the constitutional convention had rejected the idea of giving Congress the constitutional authority to regulate both INTRAstate commerce and intrastate banking, regardless if you define banking as commerce or contracts, and regardless if the parties negotiating a contract are domeciled in different states.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Just as FDR probably should have done on the campaign trail before being elected president, Trump should be promising that he will be working with the states for new amenments to the Constitution that give the feds the specific powers to do the things that will support his vision for making America great again for everybody.
Patriots need to support Trump by also electing a new state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision.
Also consider that such a Congress will probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Well, from the MSM point of view, 2 of them make it plural, so yeah, the headline is legit.
Btw, that was sarcasm from me as well. I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.