How Bernie Sanders would transform the nation

[Padawanbater2]

To use your words, you made the claim, back it up.

Explain how that breaks the commercial banks up. They can no longer take deposits... they didn't anyway.

I'm going to make a claim right now, you have no clue what you are talking about and have dug your heels in too deep now so you keep throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. I doubt you even understand why GS would have prevented the housing crisis we saw in 08', especially if you think it means the big banks will be broken up by it.

See if you can do it without name calling too, just for shits. Also, while you are at it, would you answer how you gleaned a yes or no from Sander's answer during the debate? You know... the original question.

Read the bill, specifically senator Glass' provisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act

"1999 The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB Act), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act (GS Act) of 1933. The GS Act had prohibited any one financial institution from acting as any combination of an investment/security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage; therefore, the GLB Act removed the barriers which the GS Act had established upon the financial institutions in the 1930s for acting as any combination of an investment/ security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage: Thus, with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities. That is to say, these three separate, financial entities no longer had to be separate with the passage of the GLB Act. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

 

[schuylaar]

Read the bill, specifically senator Glass' provisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act

"1999 The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB Act), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act (GS Act) of 1933. The GS Act had prohibited any one financial institution from acting as any combination of an investment/security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage; therefore, the GLB Act removed the barriers which the GS Act had established upon the financial institutions in the 1930s for acting as any combination of an investment/ security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage: Thus, with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities. That is to say, these three separate, financial entities no longer had to be separate with the passage of the GLB Act. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

But it could..

 

[ginwilly]

Read the bill, specifically senator Glass' provisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1933_Banking_Act

"1999 The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB Act), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act (GS Act) of 1933. The GS Act had prohibited any one financial institution from acting as any combination of an investment/security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage; therefore, the GLB Act removed the barriers which the GS Act had established upon the financial institutions in the 1930s for acting as any combination of an investment/ security firm, a commercial bank and an insurance brokerage: Thus, with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities. That is to say, these three separate, financial entities no longer had to be separate with the passage of the GLB Act. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

You didn't have to avoid the question with a wiki link to what it is, I already knew what it was and have been talking about it since 2000. Something tells me it's new to you and you are trying to pretend you know what you are talking about.

Just say you don't know how reinstating GS would break up the banks, at least you'd be honest then. The too big to fail are investment banks, they don't take deposits already, they don't broker insurance deals (that's AIG and Ms Clinton in right in that's the next institution to rape us) they deal in investments/securities. Reinstate GS and they are still investment banks that don't take deposits or broker insurance.

So, using your own words, how does GS break-up Gold Mansacks? I can save you time and tell you it doesn't, but you seem to insist otherwise, so....

 

[Padawanbater2]

You didn't have to avoid the question with a wiki link to what it is, I already knew what it was and have been talking about it since 2000. Something tells me it's new to you and you are trying to pretend you know what you are talking about.

Just say you don't know how reinstating GS would break up the banks, at least you'd be honest then. The too big to fail are investment banks, they don't take deposits already, they don't broker insurance deals (that's AIG and Ms Clinton in right in that's the next institution to rape us) they deal in investments/securities. Reinstate GS and they are still investment banks that don't take deposits or broker insurance.

So, using your own words, how does GS break-up Gold Mansacks? I can save you time and tell you it doesn't, but you seem to insist otherwise, so....

I've explained how GS prevented merging investment and commercial banking to you twice, post's #736 and #741, I don't think a third time will do much of anything but waste more time, especially considering you've been researching it for the past 15 years and still have a very tenuous understanding of it. The GLB Act passed in 1999 and signed by president Clinton repealed the 20th and 32nd provisions of the GS Act, "with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities.".

So there you go, GS set up the regulations in 1933 as a response to the Great Depression, GLB repealed them in 1999 which resulted in the financial collapse in 2007-2008

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks. They state that "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called "deregulation", but under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly"."

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis. In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered “too big to fail". Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of "eliteconomics" that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

 

[ttystikk]

I've explained how GS prevented merging investment and commercial banking to you twice, post's #736 and #741, I don't think a third time will do much of anything but waste more time, especially considering you've been researching it for the past 15 years and still have a very tenuous understanding of it. The GLB Act passed in 1999 and signed by president Clinton repealed the 20th and 32nd provisions of the GS Act, "with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities.".

So there you go, GS set up the regulations in 1933 as a response to the Great Depression, GLB repealed them in 1999 which resulted in the financial collapse in 2007-2008

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks. They state that "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called "deregulation", but under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly"."

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis. In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered “too big to fail". Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of "eliteconomics" that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

This should be reposted in the 'what's wrong with our economy' thread.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

Are you sure the best way for people to take college seriously is giving it to them for "free"?

Our children are given free education in a thing called "public school", why should free education have an expiration date?

If we made education as endearing as the second amendment is to most we would be the generation of tomorrow, sadly, capitalism is more important. We take more money from education and put into capitalism (student loans) but God forbid if we take capitalist money and educate our kids??

B4L

 

[ttystikk]

Our children are given free education in a thing called "public school", why should free education have an expiration date?

If we made education as endearing as the second amendment is to most we would be the generation of tomorrow, sadly, capitalism is more important. We take more money from education and put into capitalism (student loans) but God forbid if we take capitalist money and educate our kids??

B4L

Any argument that calls for cutting investments in our nation's children is a divestment in our collective future, and needs to be vigorously opposed as the shortsighted selfishness that it is.

 

[ginwilly]

I've explained how GS prevented merging investment and commercial banking to you twice, post's #736 and #741, I don't think a third time will do much of anything but waste more time, especially considering you've been researching it for the past 15 years and still have a very tenuous understanding of it. The GLB Act passed in 1999 and signed by president Clinton repealed the 20th and 32nd provisions of the GS Act, "with the passage of the GLB Act, any one financial institution—after combining any of the following:

1. an investment/ security firm, 2. a commercial bank and 3. an insurance brokerage—could act as the combination of those financial entities.".

So there you go, GS set up the regulations in 1933 as a response to the Great Depression, GLB repealed them in 1999 which resulted in the financial collapse in 2007-2008

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks. They state that "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called "deregulation", but under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly"."

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis. In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered “too big to fail". Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of "eliteconomics" that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm–Leach–Bliley_Act

So is this the first you've actually heard of the bill?

You realize you are arguing something I brought up here years ago. You can ask the creepy stalker to pull it out of my file you need it, but it's like you've just stumbled on this and want to show off your new, yet horribly incomplete knowledge.

You still haven't answered the question, or.... you think Goldman Sacks is a Savings a Loan too. They are not in case you were wondering. How does reinstating GS break up the too big to fail? It would prevent some of the very unethical, borderline behavior from happening again, but it won't undo what's already been done. It needs to be reinstated so the same thing doesn't happen again, not because it will break up the too big to fail.

I bet you wish you could go back and just answer honestly the first time, let that be a lesson.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

let me know, when you know, it's not possible..until then..

they're whipping you up, getting you scared..and you're falling for it hook, line and sinker.

the current economic model hasn't worked great for?..hmmmmm..like forever, henny penny?

think about this: what do you gain? what do they lose?..the proper shifting that should of occurred a long time ago:

PAY UP -45% SUCKERS!

because..-45%=32%..fact of the matter is..it's too late..you'll never win.

there are those who've been working relentlessly behind the scenes, in the still of the night, to take back this country.

"There are those who've been working relentlessly behind the scenes, in the still of the night, to take back this country" you said.

Yup, the very ones who always fuck up an economy thats what they want to take you back to

B4L

 

[Padawanbater2]

So is this the first you've actually heard of the bill?

You realize you are arguing something I brought up here years ago.

It was brought up during the Dem debate and Hillary and Bernie were the only two who would not re-instate Glass-Steagall.

You're the one that brought it up, post #701. The only reason I got involved is because you completely mischaracterized Sanders' position to imply he opposes Glass-Steagall

You have the memory of a canary

How does reinstating GS break up the too big to fail?

"To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble.

And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18493/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-glass-steagall-wall-street

 

[ttystikk]

We live in the midst of the greatest orgy of crony capitalism the world has ever seen. The crash- or the social revolt, whichever comes first- is coming, and soon.

It needs to stop, the perpetrators need to be held responsible for the consequences , the assets returned to the People and the country put on a path of economic opportunity for all, with most of the attention and tax breaks offered not to the ultra wealthy but to those who need help the most.

The pendulum of history has swung about as far to the right as it can, limited by its own excesses, as ever. I'm betting that twenty years from now, we'll see the emergence of prominent leaders who make Bernie Sanders look downright 'conservative' by comparison!

 

[Padawanbater2]

A lot of these people who make up the opposition to economic change truly believe any of the changes like the ones Sanders has proposed are outright theft. Many of them are not wealthy individuals, just working class people the changes would actually end up benefitting the most. Trying to be socially and politically conscious, Planned Parenthood, abortion/birth control, any perceived "attacks" on religion, political correctness, etc., the things that are at the top of the conservative agenda, are a very low priority for me. I feel these are issues that have either already been solved or aren't actually important issues - in the context of the current political atmosphere - at all.

So to make a larger point about the whole thing, a little less than half the country is focused on social issues they believe are under threat by a liberal agenda and they place the priority of "solving" (see: with force) them first. When it comes to the economy, the con-men in charge of running their party can continue to implement tax cuts for the rich because their constituents feel like they have nobody else in government to represent them and those other issues are more important.

 

[Harrekin]

We live in the midst of the greatest orgy of crony capitalism the world has ever seen. The crash- or the social revolt, whichever comes first- is coming, and soon.

It needs to stop, the perpetrators need to be held responsible for the consequences , the assets returned to the People and the country put on a path of economic opportunity for all, with most of the attention and tax breaks offered not to the ultra wealthy but to those who need help the most.

The pendulum of history has swung about as far to the right as it can, limited by its own excesses, as ever. I'm betting that twenty years from now, we'll see the emergence of prominent leaders who make Bernie Sanders look downright 'conservative' by comparison!

I thought Obama has been doing SUCH a good job that it's all rainbows and lollipops?

That's what the Dems have been saying here for years...

Kind of ironic that the people giving Wall Street such shit are the ones who credit Obama with the stock market being up.

 

[squarepush3r]

 

[ginwilly]

You're the one that brought it up, post #701. The only reason I got involved is because you completely mischaracterized Sanders' position to imply he opposes Glass-Steagall

You have the memory of a canary

"To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble.

And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18493/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-glass-steagall-wall-street

Why are you arguing about something I'm not even claiming?

It's your memory that's gone (it's a pot forum, probably more accurate that all of us have our moments). This started with my obviously biased observation that Bernie avoided the question during the debates. You called me a few things and said Bernie was obvious for re-instatement because he said so some other time. I said that's fine and all, but he avoided it during the debates, why else would he do that if not for Clinton? In your bias you wanted to make sure my bias was wrong so you pretend breaking up the banks is the same as saying yes. This is where you went off the rails.

Yes, Glass-Steagall would have prevented a lot of the shenanigans, that's why it was such a mistake to repeal in the first place. Reinstating it doesn't automatically undo what's already been done, you are pretending it will.

I ask again, how will reinstating GS break up the banks?

You've trapped yourself into answering with how it could have prevented the collapse instead of how it breaks them up in the future. It's not the same and for some reason that's lost on you.

All of this boring nonsense could have been avoided if you had just said he may have avoided answering the question directly during the debate but here's his stance. Your religious like worship of the party won't even let you admit a candidate avoided a question during the debate, like that never happens or something.

I also pointed out Cruz avoided the question when he attacked the moderators and after that it was pretty much a free for all run for whatever the candidates wanted to answer or talk about. Nobody here got their panties in a bunch the way you did. Nobody even bothered to make up shit claiming he didn't avoid it. (he tried to answer when his time was up)

 

[UncleBuck]

Government leaches off the economy.

the federal government is the biggest purchaser in moany segments of the economy. they literally create the demand which keeps products being built.

dumbass.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why are you arguing about something I'm not even claiming?

It's your memory that's gone (it's a pot forum, probably more accurate that all of us have our moments). This started with my obviously biased observation that Bernie avoided the question during the debates. You called me a few things and said Bernie was obvious for re-instatement because he said so some other time. I said that's fine and all, but he avoided it during the debates, why else would he do that if not for Clinton? In your bias you wanted to make sure my bias was wrong so you pretend breaking up the banks is the same as saying yes. This is where you went off the rails.

Yes, Glass-Steagall would have prevented a lot of the shenanigans, that's why it was such a mistake to repeal in the first place. Reinstating it doesn't automatically undo what's already been done, you are pretending it will.

I ask again, how will reinstating GS break up the banks?

You've trapped yourself into answering with how it could have prevented the collapse instead of how it breaks them up in the future. It's not the same and for some reason that's lost on you.

All of this boring nonsense could have been avoided if you had just said he may have avoided answering the question directly during the debate but here's his stance. Your religious like worship of the party won't even let you admit a candidate avoided a question during the debate, like that never happens or something.

I also pointed out Cruz avoided the question when he attacked the moderators and after that it was pretty much a free for all run for whatever the candidates wanted to answer or talk about. Nobody here got their panties in a bunch the way you did. Nobody even bothered to make up shit claiming he didn't avoid it. (he tried to answer when his time was up)

complete meltdown.

 

[Padawanbater2]

To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble.

And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone."

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18493/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-glass-steagall-wall-street

I'm not interested in having a conversation with anyone who doesn't pay attention to what is actually being said. Since you just keep repeating the same questions, I'd suggest you reread from post #701, all the answers are there. Have fun.

 

[Harrekin]

I'm not interested in having a conversation with anyone who doesn't pay attention to what is actually being said. Since you just keep repeating the same questions, I'd suggest you reread from post #701, all the answers are there. Have fun.

Why wouldn't a bank provide funding to a seperate corporation that rakes in billions in profits per year?

That's called a "safe bet" and only a black swan event would make it otherwise.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Be my guest if you're an investment bank, gamble with your own money if you're a commercial bank

You don't get to privatize the profit and subsidize the risk