New study confirms economy was destroyed by Democrat policies

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pladuim
 


Unless that study sheds any light on how Republican politicians started the push to repeal Glass Steagall.
That coincidentally opened the flood gates for banks to cause the housing bubble.

Then it's just one sided BS not worth even reading.

There's three sides to every story.
And if we don't get all sides then we don't know what went on. And Democratic policies are just one side of the coin.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
New study confirms economy was destroyed by Democrat policies

Didn't need a study:






posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 





Unless that study sheds any light on how Republican politicians started the push to repeal Glass Steagall.


Uh Republican eh?


By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.”[4] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[5] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[6] Ma


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by grey580
 





Unless that study sheds any light on how Republican politicians started the push to repeal Glass Steagall.


Uh Republican eh?


By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), many commentators argued Glass–Steagall was already “dead.”[4] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass–Steagall Act.[5] President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate."[6] Ma


en.wikipedia.org...


the repeal of glass-stegal was born in the right wing think tank ALEC
you are being disingenuous again
or misinformed


Another David Koch project, Citizens for a Sound Economy—which launched the effort to repeal Glass-Steagall protections keeping banks from gambling in securities—helped fuel the fight for “free trade,” an unpopular policy in the 1980s. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed with help from CSE and its corporate allies. ALEC resolutions for state legislators have long supported such trade agreements in the face of local concerns about job losses, and today the Koch free-market fantasy is reflected in ALEC’s support for free trade pacts with Korea, Georgia, Colombia and other countries. On just about every issue taken on by Koch’s CSE, ALEC has provided legislative tools to carry them through to state legislatures, from privatizing “federal and state services and assets,” as CSE put it, to blocking common-sense caps on unlimited credit card interest rates.


www.thenation.com...#

try again?

xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Nope

The same way Wilson owns the Federal Reserve, The same way Bush owns the Patriot act, the Same way Obama owns the NDAA Clinton owns Glass Stegall.

And all of those people signed that legislation in to LAW anyone who disagrees with that are the ones who are being "disingenuous".



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm already on that page. And you didn't read it thoroughly enough.
I see you left out the part where (R-IA) Leach introduced legislation to repeal the act.
Now why would a Republican do such a thing? I wonder.


On January 4, 1995, the new Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Representative James A. Leach (R-IA), introduced a bill to repeal Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32.[178] After being confirmed as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin announced on February 28, 1995, that the Clinton Administration supported such Glass–Steagall repeal.[179] Repeating themes from the 1980s, Leach stated Glass–Steagall was “out of synch with reality”[180] and Rubin argued “it is now time for the laws to reflect changes in the world’s financial system.”[179]

Leach and Rubin expressed a widely shared view that Glass–Steagall was “obsolete” or “outdated.”[181] As described above, Senator Proxmire[103] and Representative Markey[155] (despite their long-time support for Glass–Steagall) had earlier expressed the same conclusion. With his reputation for being “conservative” on expanded bank activities,[140] former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker remained an influential commentator on legislative proposals to permit such activities.[182] Volcker continued to testify to Congress in opposition to permitting banks to affiliate with commercial companies and in favor of repealing Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of “rationalizing” bank involvement in securities markets.[183] Supporting the Leach and Rubin arguments, Volcker testified that Congressional inaction had forced banking regulators and the courts to play “catch-up” with market developments by “sometimes stretching established interpretations of law beyond recognition.”[184] In 1997 Volcker testified this meant the “Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking is now almost gone” and that this “accommodation and adaptation has been necessary and desirable.”[185] He stated, however, that the “ad hoc approach” had created “uneven results” that created “almost endless squabbling in the courts” and an “increasingly advantageous position competitively” for “some sectors of the financial service industry and particular institutions.”[185] Similar to the GAO in 1988[118] and Representative Markey in 1990[155] Volcker asked that Congress “provide clear and decisive leadership that reflects not parochial pleadings but the national interest.”[185]



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 





I see you left out the part where (R-IA) Leach introduced legislation to repeal the act.


Legislation gets introduced all the time the only thing that counts is the person who signed in to LAW.

I do love no matter the topic Democrats are capable of never doing anything wrong case in point :

Doesn't matter about that Democrat who signed it in to law only matters who introduced it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Nope

The same way Wilson owns the Federal Reserve, The same way Bush owns the Patriot act, the Same way Obama owns the NDAA Clinton owns Glass Stegall.

And all of those people signed that legislation in to LAW anyone who disagrees with that are the ones who are being "disingenuous".


you keep pointing to the puppets,
when the men pulling the strings wrote, promoted, and advertised their bill to congress.

ALEC's finger prints are all over this crime scene,
you point to the president at the time when it passed,

NOT the architects of the repeal legislation.

inform yourself please this is an important point,
ALEC screwed america with this repeal effort

xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Sorry don't subscribe to the "puppet" theories.as Democrat policies have done much to harm this country tho none will ever admit it.
edit on 27-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by grey580
 





I see you left out the part where (R-IA) Leach introduced legislation to repeal the act.


Legislation gets introduced all the time the only thing that counts is the person who signed in to LAW.

I do love no matter the topic Democrats are capable of never doing anything wrong case in point :

Doesn't matter about that Democrat who signed it in to law only matters who introduced it.


what about who wrote it?
what about who payed for it?
what about who introduced it?
WHAT ABOUT WHO VOTED FOR IT IN CONGRESS?

you are choosing to ignore the information shown to you because it dosnt fit your naritive

xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


What about it?




you are choosing to ignore the information shown to you because it dosnt fit your naritive


Yeah someone is clearly ignoring information shown to them because it doesn't fit their narrative.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Sorry don't subscribe to the "puppet" theories.as Democrat policies have done much to harm this country tho none will ever admit it.
edit on 27-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


do you admit that ALEC's policies have damaged the economy,?
because if you are prepared to admit their damage i will show you more democrat damage

i am not a democrat btw

xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


They are CLinton policies as he signed that in to law.

Oh and here:




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


i saw this video years ago,
i saw another where the FBI said "there is an epidemic of morgage lender fraud"

conducted BY THE BANK LENDERS.

in your opinion are the banks blameless?
xploder



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Any study that claims to have found the single, pin point flaw that caused the collapse, is so far out there that I don't think Voyager 1 has surpassed it...yet.

The recession, and potential coming collapse, are a culmination of many guffaws, made by many different Presidents. Republican and Democrat.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Considering banks are regulated, and those congressman were sitting there going move right along nothing to see here,

I would say Government has the majority of the blame.

The same people who created Fanny and Freddy were the same people who created MRES and also created the conditions that subprimes would create a bubble, and as with all bubbles do they burst.

They did not fix the problem as Fanny and Freddy still hold trillions in mortgages, they were warned and did nothing so they could get in to the White House in 2008.

Unlike those who love to vilify banks and corporations the culprit is government create a problem so they can offer a solution.

edit on 27-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
which democrat decided to de-regulate the derivatives industry because he "didn't think they would be that greedy?"

what tripe

propaganda



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
You know there are some 500 or so people that voted for or against the repeal of Glass Steagall.

So to say that the blame solely falls upon Clinton because he signed the bill into law.
Well I don't know.

It's not like Clinton said one day. Let's destroy the economy by de regulating the banking industry by repealing laws put in place to help keep the banking industry in check.

I'm sure if we were to point fingers it would of been the lobbyists feeding politicians bad information about how good repealing the act would be for the country. As well as how good it would be for Congress Men and Womens wallets if they voted a certain way.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Yes I too noticed the singularity, actually there was more than one by that poster and the daft video but no matter, the fact is that it was the banks, the biggest banks, that made pig shi'te out of what could have been decent pieces of legislation based basically on trust. It's hard to fathom the real story, the money dealt just doesn't cease to exist, it has gone somewhere, and that's where the real story is.
edit on 27-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


But surely, if an article came out by a known Democrat sympathiser saying the same thing but about Republicans, you'd be all over it like white on rice....

Personally, I think its both sides of the same coin. For a country so emotionally invested in personal freedom, democracy etc, only having two political parties to choose from surely just guarantees the political merry go round will continue and you'll all be fighting each other over Elephants and Donkeys, rather than thinking "Hang on, why not try someone else?"





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join