[Vigilanteman]

Lyndon LaRouche might be a nut job, but it was a legitimate question. Personally, I think Glass–Steagall served a legitimate purpose. Banks should not be risking deposits in the stock market.

I know there are good regional banks who put deposits in relatively safe low-risk stocks such as utilities and the like, but they are the exception and not the rule.

[RayChuang88]

However, I think they should have re-imposed Glass-Steagall after the 2008 stock market crash.

Remember, if Glass-Steagall was still in place in 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed the effect on the economy would be like what happened in 1987: banks become the economic backstop to prevent an all-out financial crash. In 2008, without Glass-Steagall protections, we came very close to a 1929-style complete collapse of the entire banking system--it was only the financial success of Apple, Google and the biotech companies that finally began to get the US economy back on its feet by 2011.

[Milton Miteybad]

Frankly...I’d be surprised if Hitlery knew what Glass-Steagall was without being prompted by one of her toadies. Which probably explains why the questioner was shown the door.