Glass-Steagall Now! Why Americans need to support HR1489.

Only the FDR Glass-Steagall principle will separate commercial from speculative banking, thus freeing the nation from obligations to Wall St. and the City of London, and re-establishing a credit system for rebuilding the nation.

The restoration of Glass-Steagall would re-create the necessary separation between commercial banking and the securities business, in the manner provided in the Banking Act of 1933, the so called 'Glass-Steagall Act.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus

what that at the end about then la rouches 62 million yr cycle path through the solar system mentions some crises and nasa wow not heard that one off to l-pac tv to watch thanks for this one more to it than meets the eye

reinstate glass stiegal?
sure
great idea
reality?
to late...

the horse has left the station
mussolini has already shot the conductor who was late
and there is NO bringing him back

this train will run on time

Originally posted by bauldrick
reply to post by CodexSinaiticus

 

what that at the end about then la rouches 62 million yr cycle path through the solar system mentions some crises and nasa wow not heard that one off to l-pac tv to watch thanks for this one more to it than meets the eye

Yeah, I had the same reaction I was like.....what did he say?

Thread is here re 62 million year cycle..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's futile. Whatever you do, the Elite will move business elsewhere more lucrative. America is over. (And don't give me that bullcrap that you are hardworking and patriotic. Whatever that means.)

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus


I'd not heard of the Glass-Steagall Act until this post, but reckon I'll study up on it now.

Thanks for the introductory info.

Mhm, what parts of Glass-Steagall do they want to reinstate? To my knowledge the Glass-Steagall act was never fully repealed, just sections of the act were. I also don't see how repealing Glass-Steagall created our current mess. Europe, also had a housing bubble, but Glass-Steagall had no effect on them.

it allowed the investment banks to use government money to bet that the ecomomy was going to crash while selling the investment vehicles that were going to crash to the government..
at tax payer expense...

in other words you have been robbed.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


perhaps a little research might clear up your confusion

In 1933, in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and during a nationwide commercial bank failure and the Great Depression, two members of Congress put their names on what is known today as the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). This act separated investment and commercial banking activities. At the time, "improper banking activity", or what was considered overzealous commercial bank involvement in stock market investment, was deemed the main culprit of the financial crash. According to that reasoning, commercial banks took on too much risk with depositors' money. Additional and sometimes non-related explanations for the Great Depression evolved over the years, and many questioned whether the GSA hindered the establishment of financial services firms that can equally compete against each other. We will take a look at why the GSA was established and what led to its final repeal in 1999.

Reasons for the Act - Commercial Speculation
Commercial banks were accused of being too speculative in the pre-Depression era, not only because they were investing their assets but also because they were buying new issues for resale to the public. Thus, banks became greedy, taking on huge risks in the hope of even bigger rewards. Banking itself became sloppy and objectives became blurred. Unsound loans were issued to companies in which the bank had invested, and clients would be encouraged to invest in those same stocks.

www.investopedia.com...

Read more: www.investopedia.com...

" final repeal in 1999"

reply to post by Danbones

The Glass–Steagall Act created the FDIC, the FDIC is still in place. The FDIC allows banks to make risky loans because their depositors are covered. I've also never seen a law saying that insurance and banking staying separate would stop an insurance company underwritten by an investment bank from selling credit default swaps on loans and the attainment of other banks.

My point is, many mainstream economist blame the rating agencies that gave credit default swaps a triple A rating when they did not deserve them as the main cause of our economic crisis, but even if Glass–Steagall was still in place those credit default swaps would've still been sold and given triple A ratings.

It makes sense to me to reinstate Glass-Steagall. It will do little for a lot of the current problems in the short term but will help prevent a relapse. This law did come from hard learnt lessons that needs to be relearned. It will prevent these 'too big to fail' to continue operation as the risky speculators hold it over the conservative investors. This separation process that these 'too big to fail' will have to undertake in order to comply will also provide an opportunity to clean out a lot of the cob webs and corruption at the same time.

As for the discussion on a credit based economy, it is causing a lot of friction in the international economy. A economy is made up by the wealth of a nation like assets, resources, cash, investments and credit. The focus America has with credit shows that it has gone too far and over extend its importance in relation to the other wealth of the nation. Part of this is due to the viscus cycle it can create along with the easy money that is generated for the provider of the loan. The approach taken by sharia law in regards to credit is a lot more reasonable in its application and not seen as an opportunity to capitalise on an unfortunate situation. I know America is having a difficult challenge with this but I do not see the rest of the world ready to fall into this growing vortex.

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus


I know enough about it that it should be restored.
How do we go about doing it?

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus


thankyou will read sorry about the one liner being curteous sorry mods

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by CodexSinaiticus

 

I know enough about it that it should be restored.
How do we go about doing it?

Below is the political and institutional support for passage of the bill. If the institution you are affiliated with is not on this list, or you congressional representative is not, then your direction should be clear.

The problem is that Obama has been against passage due to his relations with the financial interests of the bankers. He is also the tool the PTB will use to bring fascism to this once great country of ours. Once his task is complete he will be discarded, having served his purpose.

It is not enough to simply pass this bill, it must pass by a 2/3 majority. I am saying that the puppet will veto this bill! Therefore congress must override that veto!

Overriding a veto:

Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override a presidential veto. A two-thirds majority vote of the Members present is required to override a presidential veto. If one house fails to override a veto, the other house does not attempt to override, even if the votes are present to succeed. The House and Senate may attempt to override a veto anytime during the Congress in which the veto is issued. Should both houses of Congress successfully vote to override a presidential veto, the bill becomes law. According the the Congressional Research service, from 1789 through 2004, only 106 of 1,484 regular presidential vetoes were overridden by Congress.

The following information is from: www.larouchepac.com...

Current List of Congressional Signers to HR1489
May 16, 2011 • 12:46 PM
**June 24 Update: George Miller has become the 20th co-sponsor of H.R. 1489.

Current Co-Sponsors:

John Garamendi (D-CA)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Jim McDermott (D-WASH)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CALIF)
James Moran (D-VA)
John Conyers (D-MICH)
Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-ILL)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
(init.) Marcy Kaptur (D - Ohio)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
Danny Davis (D-IL)
Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Jan Shakowsky (D-IL)
Barbara Lee (D-Ca)
Mike Coffman (R-CO)
George Miller (D-CA)
Institutional Support:

January 2011 -- The Louisiana State Board of the National Association of Realtors passed a resolution calling for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and demanding that the National Association of Realtors do the same.
March 2011 -- The National Farmers Union, at its March 13-15 National Convention in San Antonio, reaffirmed its spring 2010 call for the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
May 2011 -- The International Association of Machinists, one of the largest unions in America, put the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, specifically H.R. 1489, as a priority for their legislative agenda.
May 9, 2011 -- The Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council unanimously endorsed LPAC's resolution for Glass-Steagall.
May 11, 2011 -- The Northwest Oregon Labor Council unanimously endorsed LPAC's resolution for Glass-Steagall.
May 12, 2011 -- The Democratic Party of Multnomah County, Oregon--the country in which the state's largest city, Portland, is located--passed a resolution calling for the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
June 14, 2011: The New Jersey AFL-CIO has endorsed HR1489. It passed a unanimous voice vote before the state AFL-CIO convention. The resolution states that the national AFL-CIO supports this legislation.
June 16, 2011: The Greater Louisville, KY, Building And Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, passed a resolution of support for H.R. 1489.
June 22, 2011: The Rochester & Genesee Valley Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, endorsed the resolution in support of H.R. 1489 .
June 24, 2011: PA State Council of Machinists, endorsed the AFL-CIO resolution in support of H.R. 1489
June 24, 2011: IBEW Local 575 of Portsmouth, Ohio endorsed the AFL-CIO resolution in support of H.R. 1489
June 29, 2011: Wisconsin Alliance for Retired Americans, an AFL-CIO affiliated organization endorses H.R. 1489
June 30, 2011: King County Central Committee (Seattle, WA), endorses Glass Steagall, along with H.R. 1489
June 30, 2011: The Fox Valley Labor Council AFL-CIO, out of Wisconsin has endorsed H.R. 1489.
June 30, 2011: Shawnee District AFL-CIO Council, Portsmouth, OH, endorses H.R. 1489 with a resolution.
Legislative Support:

June 2010: The Borough Council of Lansford, Pa. and the Council of Morgan Township both passed resolutions demanding their Congressmen re-enact Glass-Steagall.
September 2010: The Port Jervis, New York City Council passed LPAC's resolution for Glass-Steagall.
Fall 2010: Mansfield Township, New Jersey passed LPAC's resolution for Glass-Steagall.
May 24, 2011: The city council of Irvington, NJ passed a Glass-Steagall resolution.
June 13, 2011: The city council of Newton, NJ passed a Glass-Steagall resolution.
June 14, 2011: The city council of Elizabeth, NJ passed a Glass-Steagall resolution.
June 20, 2011: The City Council of the Boro of Ridgway, PA, passed a resolution calling on Congress to pass H.R. 1489.
Resolutions Introduced:

February 11, 2011 -- Kentucky State Senator Perry Clark (D) introduced a resolution calling on Congress to immediate reinstate Glass-Steagall.
March 17, 2011 -- Missouri State Rep. Bert Atkins (D-St. Louis County) introduced HCR 49, a concurrent resolution calling for Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
March 24, 2011 -- Alabama Rep. Tom Jackson (D) introduced H.R. 190, a resolution urging Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
Editorial Support:

The Fairbanks, Alaska Daily News Miner, in June 2010.
The Bangor, Maine Bangor Daily News in June 2010.
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the flagship paper of Richard Mello

The hell does it matter if we "support" a bill or not?
Congress passes what they want regardless of popular opinion.
This isn't jaded cynicism, this is just the way it is.

reply to post by CodexSinaiticus

I have spent a good part of this afternoon, reviewing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, and the actions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I have a headache.

One company I investigated today, Citigroup, is a perfect example of what shouldn't have happened and should have been prevented by the Glass-Steagall Act, and in fact, the merger in 1998 of Citicorp and Travelers Insurance was an illegal merger, specifically allowed by waiver with the expectation that the G-S Act would be repealed. And that is exactly what the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did. It allowed banking, security and insurance companies to merge, when that was an activity specifically prohibited by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

The result? Citigroup suffered HUGE losses in 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 with a stimulus package from the US government. Too huge to fail. And who were its largest shareholders, you ask? The Middle East and Singapore. In 2009 the US government provided $25 billion and took 36% equity in the company. This equity was later liquidated by the government.

Who ate the expense, you and me, of course.

Can someone with more financial smarts please explain to me why this was ever considered a financially sound move? I realize that large corporations are out there to make profits to feed their shareholders, but where is the soundness in destroying the financial base (the people) who feed the corps. Was this all just to bust the economy?

I will await some replys, while I take something for my headache.

reply to post by BearTruth


You're really close to defining the problem just by asking that question. The issue, as I see it, is that the rules all changed with TARP. Capitalism dictates that your financial laws are based on an almost Darwinian theory. There can be no such thing as bailouts and "too big to fail" corporations. If a company(or banking institution) finds itself teetering, then they must rescue themselves or else they die. The instant the government made the boneheaded choice to make risk public while keeping profits privatised, the USA's entire economic system facepalmed. There is no computer economic model anywhere that indicates you can successfully have socialized losses & risk alongside capitalistic profits and gains and not suffer a complete meltdown in the public balance sheet. It's like giving an alcoholic a free bar tab and then wondering why, at the end of the month, your bar is posting record losses.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Danbones

 

The Glass–Steagall Act created the FDIC, the FDIC is still in place. The FDIC allows banks to make risky loans because their depositors are covered. I've also never seen a law saying that insurance and banking staying separate would stop an insurance company underwritten by an investment bank from selling credit default swaps on loans and the attainment of other banks.

My point is, many mainstream economist blame the rating agencies that gave credit default swaps a triple A rating when they did not deserve them as the main cause of our economic crisis, but even if Glass–Steagall was still in place those credit default swaps would've still been sold and given triple A ratings.

edit on 5-7-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

good point BUT
it was created as a TEMPORARY agency
from the FDICs own websight :

Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government

www.fdic.gov...

that coverage from the Tax payer is part of why banks can be irresponsible
the tax payer will cover it
thats why it wasn't removed along with the rest of glass steagle.
its the lynch pin of the return side of the theft

they stole it and got payed to steal it.

so the "TOXIC ASSETS are just that
shown on the balance sheats as positive..when they are NOT...
they are a total lie of value.

By now it is well established that the collapse of such mortgage-backed securities set off a chain reaction that nearly wrecked the global economy last year.

huffpostfund.org...

there is something to be said for the ratings game that was played I think.
but not the inhouse betting against the investors...
there is a big problem there
BUT gold man for example lied directly to investors...
again wouldn't have happened if GLA was inplace

Goldman Sachs fined 550 million USD for giving clients “incomplete information”
Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay 550 million US dollars to settle civil fraud charges of misleading investors. The US financial watchdog, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), said this was the biggest fine against a bank in its history.

en.mercopress.com...


the mark to fantasy BS that keeps the inflated values on the books which could not have happened
under GSA
they would have been marked to value.

goldman is a top twenty bailout recipient
(along with my Canadian bank..who knew?)

Goldman Sachs collected $2.9 billion from the American International Group as payout on a speculative trade it placed for the benefit of its own account, receiving the bulk of those funds after AIG received an enormous taxpayer rescue, according to the final report of an investigative panel appointed by Congress.

The fact that a significant slice of the proceeds secured by Goldman through the AIG bailout landed in its own account--as opposed to those of its clients or business partners-- has not been previously disclosed. These details about the workings of the controversial AIG bailout, which eventually swelled to $182 billion, are among the more eye-catching revelations in the report to be released Thursday by the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

www.americablog.com...

theres yer trouble

note the disparity in amounts

Hell ya,,, bring back the sanity America!