The Clintons didnt cause the economic meltdown

[mkultra]

some of our so-called left comrades here on DU have been bitching about Obama's appointments of several previous Clinton staffers. The claim has been that they where partially to blame for the economic meltdown due to their de-regulatory moves and those are bad choices.

It was BUSH who caused this problem and BUSH alone.

During the eary days of Fanny and Freddie, the orgs started experimenting with selling CDO's (collateral debt obligations) to help alleviate the debt load they where experiencing. Essentially, Fanny or freddie would lend money to sub-prime lenders who would get someone in a house and they would do this until the money was gone. But when F&F could sell off this debt, it freed up more sub prime loan money and the subprime originators(read Countrywide) would go out again and get more sub prime loans.

The Bush administration recommended that F&F started aggressively selling these CDO packs to advance the financial market. The end result was that financial houses snapped them up and Countrywide had all the money they could ever want to lend out to sub-prime borrowers. Country wide got greedy and started lying about income/qualifications/debt to income ration in order to make the loans. Greed at the top had trickled down.

While this mess was going on, Cheney was having secret meetings with refiners to set the American energy policy for the future. A future full of high gas prices and huge profits for the refiners. Profits which where possibly obtained through collusion or price fixing. For whatever reason, gas prices went up and up, and the economy moved into stall position.

Greenspan steps down and Bernanke is appointed by Bush. Bernanke, who studied the great depression is afraid of the possibility of a crash which could come on the heals of a housing bubble burst that Greenspan has warned about. In an effort to deflate this balloon Bernanke starts increasing the overnight lending rate.


So, all three forces come together at once. The gas prices slow the economy, which causes people to lose jobs and income to go down, which slows house purchases, which causes a glut of homes on the market, which causes housing prices to go down.

The high lending rate causes ARM loans, which is what most sub prime borrowers have, to go up making payments higher, further depressing the market and touching off the first wave of foreclosures. Bernanke does not respond by lowering the rates due to his "depression" fear. Thus starts the downward spiral which eventually results in the collapse of all the banking institutions who bought the debt of these sub prime borrowers.


IN summary: Bush bad, Clinton good. STFU!

[Uben]

1. Never underestimate the power of the Clenis!

It just sounded like the appropriate answer

[mkultra]

3. i can see that you read the post

that was the answer i was looking for.

[ColbertWatcher]

57. LOL! The Clenis knows all, sees all and effects all! All hail The Clenis! n/t

[TygrBright]

2. Not BOTH of them, maybe. But the CLENIS.... n/t

[Kahuna]

31. WRONGO!!! The Clenis would have self-corrected had he seen things..

veering off into dangerous territory. It was bushco's responsibility to see the dangers and correct them.

[mkultra]

33. i agree, where im from, blaming Clinton for this mess is a RW argument

that takes alot of disregard for the facts.

[Greyhound]

4. None of which would have been possible without the preceding

18 years of groundwork being laid, including Bill Clinton's considerable contributions and finishing touches.

[mkultra]

5. clearly george washington had something to do with this.

the economic system is built off of changes made by every governmental installment. Woodrow Wilson is clearly to blame for his reckless establishment of the FED!

[Greyhound]

16. If you want to go that way, which is irrelevant to your case, you should be looking at

the SCOTUS of the 1830s.

The facts are plain, Bill Clinton talked about helping all of the usual suspects, but only achieved the reich-wing agenda in toto. By the time he was out, the only thing left to do was implement.

Are gays welcome to serve in the military? No.

Have women achieved income parity? No.

How about minorities? No.

Are the parasites held responsible for their crimes? No.

Were the "displaced workers" educated to fill the jobs the information economy tried to generate? No.

Was our military budget brought under control? No.

Did we get trade equity with his vaunted agreements? No.

Has China become a model of democracy in Asia? No.

Was any progress made in repairing our broken health care system? No.

Was any progress made in repairing our broken education system? No.

Are there fewer homeless? No.

Are there fewer children in poverty? No.

Did he help the family farmers to survive the assault from the banks and agricorps? No.

Did he foster that "healthy competition" in American business? No.

Did higher education become more accessible/affordable under his administration? No.

Did the millions thrown off "the welfare rolls" get any assistance in bettering their lives? No.

Did he allow the prosecutions of the blatant criminality of the previous administrations to go forward? No.

How long a list would you like? There's plenty more.

Was he the worst President of the 20th century? No, but he certainly isn't in the running for the best.

[mkultra]

18. so where do you rank him and whats yoru list?

stick with modern post WWI presidents please.

[Greyhound]

25. I've never actually ranked them, let me think about it.

Post WWI (any reason you want to exclude the first 14 years of the 20th?)let's see.

It's a short list;

Democrats
FDR
Truman
Kennedy
LBJ
Carter
Clinton

Republiks
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
Eisenhower
Nixon
Ford
Raygun
41

Back in a bit...

[mkultra]

29. rank them as a mixed bag.

[Greyhound]

46. OK, here it is.

FDR(D)
Kennedy/Carter(D)
LBJ(D)
Eisenhower(R)
Clinton(D)
Ford(R)
Nixon(R)
Truman(D)
Coolidge(R)
41(R)
Harding(R)
Hoover(R)
Raygun(R)

There are a few toss-ups that are subject to change based how I feel that day, for example Ford is tough because he was such a nothing, and Harding might jump over 41 when I can separate him from his spawn, but he is such an evil SOB in his own right.

I just couldn't make a choice between Carter and Kennedy since Kennedy was cut down before he could give us a firm indication of which way he was headed.

[mkultra]

48. looks about right

i would move Nixon down some though. My point of course was never that he was a great president but rather he had nothing material to do with this meltdown.

[Greyhound]

55. You can't ignore, most especially, NAFTA, MFN for China, the WTO/IMF consortium,

the destruction of welfare with nothing to replace it, quashing the prosecutions, repeal of Glass/Steagle. There was so much more, but these led directly to our undoing and he was warned and is certainly smart enough to have seen the potential for disaster. He chose to ignore the consequences in the name of political expediency.

In some ways that makes him worse than idiot frat boy, IMO. Of course, I'd take him over IFB given the choice, but still...

[mkultra]

121. he didnt repeal glass/steagle

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. NAFTA and WTO, and though it was put in as a rider

he got rid of glass steegal

History will not be as harsh with Clinton, since the economy expanded under him... but once enough distance is built... his role will not be that bright either, due to nafta and wto chiefly, and some historians will blame him for glass steegal

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Only major quibble, reverse ronnie and Hoover

and put 43 under both,

Oh and Buchannan and Harrison above junior

:-)

Yes, I know... but actually hoover was worst than raygun

[mkultra]

96. raygun was pretty damn bad

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Yeah but he never reached great depression territory

nor did he say the economy was great in-spite of the evidence

The recession was bad, don't get me wrong but it was no depression

Junior on the other hand, is entering hooverian territory... and two wars, why the buchannans and the harrisons are happy.

[Greyhound]

140. Yes, but the criteria was post WWI, 20th century.

I'm not an authority but I would rank Hoover higher based solely on intent combined with the IFB wars.

Wilson would have been far down the list just for the FED alone.

The more you look, the more depressing it gets.

:hi:

[polmaven]

61. Yeah, but you have to admit..

If the CLENIS hadn't been responsible for the Big Bang, this economy would be in terrific shape!

[mod mom]

6. Repeal of Glass Steagall (banking de-reg); MF Trade Status with China and NAFTA are among Clinton's

contribution to our current economic crisis. It doesn't help the Dems to gloss over the Clinton era. We must confront what caused the problems so we don't encounter the same problems down the road. (Think: cover-up of BCCI/Iran Contra allowed for the re-emergence of the neocons/BFFE) Ask yourself, why did Clinton allow these scandals to be swept under the rug? Did it help or hurt this country? Kerry had the goods but was not allowed to proceed.

[fascisthunter]

10. nope.... it certainly doesn't

also, a person who wants to gloss over truth and then tells others on the "left" to STFU should take his/her own advice.

[mkultra]

11. well, thats easy to debate

the Steagall repeal was passed by an over-welming bi-partisan majority which was essentially veto proof. Only a moron would veto that and its hard to show that this act had any real influence on this meltdown.

Also,

One of the purposes of NAFTA was to improve the economy of Mexico which, imo , is sorely needed for the health and well being of Mexicans. Many reviews of NAFTA have shown that this act has had little to no real impact on US trade. The move was essentially a failure but not one that lead to economic problems.

[mod mom]

40. Spend a little time and research

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.<1>
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Va), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. <2> On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).

Senate Vote On Passage: S. 900 <106th>: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Vote Number: Senate Vote #105 in 1999
Date: May 6, 1999 8:14PM
Result: Bill Passed
Related Bill: S. 900 <106th>: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Overview

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-105



We've lost a ton of jobs to China ON MF TRADE STATUS w CHINA-Democrats OPPOSED IT, Clinton sided with the GOP:



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

-snip

House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.

Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.

-snip

House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/


Seems to me that Bill Clinton sided with the GOP quite a bit. Perhaps it has to do with his connections to financier Jackson Stephens (Bush/BCCI/Walmart/WTI Toxic Waste Incinerator financier). He also added the GOP in signing the Telecom Act of '96 (think Media Consolidation) and is still palling around with some dubious characters-here is one that really burns me the Kazakh president-a noted oppressive tyrant, who Mr Clinton enthusiastically recommended to head an international organization that monitors elections despite quashing political dissent in his own country:



After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 31, 2008
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

-snip


"Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent."

"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."

-snip

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

LINK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html


Sorry, even if he calls himself a Dem I believe actions speak louder than words.

[mkultra]

49. loosk like your the one that doesnt do enough research

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate<9> and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives<10>. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. <11> Wiki


In effect, the right engineered it and modified a bill that had passed. I wonder why? would it be the VETO THREAT. the bill was reworked into a veto proof version.


again, he was just a president, not the entire democratic wing during his tenure.

[Greyhound]

60. Using the final vote is disingenuous as it implies nearly universal support

which did not exist until it was clear that it was going to happen regardless of individual stance. This is similar to Hilary's much publicized "no vote" on the bankruptcy "reform" bill, she worked tirelessly for it's passage for three years and once it was done, she successfully distanced herself from it by being absent the day it passed.

Once it is a done deal, which it is once it goes to conference, there is nothing to lose in supporting it and less to gain opposing it.

The committee fights are usually where the action is and where the deals are cut. It is also the time when the President makes his wishes known.

[mkultra]

72. using the final vote is evidentuary of Bill's stance

BECAUSE of the veto threat, the republicans took a WON bill back for rework so that it had bipartisan support in congress. This effort made the bill veto proof. After that, its just parliamentary procedure.

[mod mom]

137. I've done the research-here read these( if you care about what really transpired):

How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became law -
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. President Bill Clinton signed this bill into law on November 12, 1999.

Bill Clinton -
So we know that the topic of that late night phone call between Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill, the man whose career began in the subprime mortgage business, was the Community Reinvestment Act. We know that Phil Gramm, who was the one most strongly pushing for gutting CRA (Leach actually supported it) threatened to torpedo the legislation if the White House did not reach an agreement.

So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? At this point not enough evidence is available to finally connect the dots, but whatever it is, it cannot possibly benefit Bill Clinton. The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky.

-snip
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/pilgrim/2008/09/19/the_players_in_paving_the_way_to_the_wall_st_meltdown


THIS FRONTLINE IS AN EXCELLENT CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:

A chronology tracing the life of the Glass-Steagall Act, from its passage in 1933 to its death throes in the 1990s, and how Citigroup's Sandy Weill dealt the coup de grâce.


On April 6, 1998, Weill and Reed announce a $70 billion stock swap merging Travelers (which owned the investment house Salomon Smith Barney) and Citicorp (the parent of Citibank), to create Citigroup Inc., the world's largest financial services company, in what was the biggest corporate merger in history.

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commecial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

-snip

Citicorp and Travelers quietly lobby banking regulators and government officials for their support. In late March and early April, Weill makes three heads-up calls to Washington: to Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and President Clinton. On April 5, the day before the announcement, Weill and Reed make a ceremonial call on Clinton to brief him on the upcoming announcement.

-snip

Weill and Reed have to act quickly for both business and political reasons. Fears that the necessary regulatory changes would not happen in time had caused the share prices of both companies to fall. The House Republican leadership indicates that it wants to enact the measure in the current session of Congress. While the Clinton administration generally supported Glass-Steagall "modernization," but there are concerns that mid-term elections in the fall could bring in Democrats less sympathetic to changing the laws.


-snip

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html


"Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" another RW Orwellian name that had the backing of Clinton. Note how the lefty :eyes: PBS Frontline comments that Clinton worried that the election might bring new Dems that might not be persuaded to tote the banking de-regulation. Hmmh...sounds like Clinton was on board to me!

I don't understand how some folks here are quick to criticize the freepers for blindly following GOP leaders and yet they are willing to do the same w Clinton.

[mkultra]

139. actually, your reading things into this

first up, it does NOT say that "Clinton worried" It says there "are concerns" which is general term reflecting back onto the drivers Weill and Reed. They had concerns. In reality, i think this paragraph is key;

<snip>
So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? At this point not enough evidence is available to finally connect the dots, but whatever it is, it cannot possibly benefit Bill Clinton. The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky.

</snip>

it seems clear that the reason Clinton's writers where silent on this issue was that it was a circumstance in which the current democratic and republican congress worked together to circumvent his authority as president. They had an approved bill that passed both houses, yet they took it back and re-worked it to gain a veto proof bi-partisan majority.

[burythehatchet]

65. Of course its easy to debate when you make shit up. (Sometimes people do check)

Vote Counts: YEAs 54
NAYs 44
Present 1
Not Voting 1

[mkultra]

75. or when you are to stupid to read.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate<9> and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives<10>. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. <11>


go fuck yourself moron.

[burythehatchet]

81. heh heh. The word "your" is the posessive pronoun. It differs from "you're"

which is the contraction of "you are". Your welcome :rofl:

I'll go fuck myself now.

B-)

[mkultra]

85. thanks for the copy edit

You forgot to mention that contractions in written work are frowned upon. At least we know you can read so progress is being made.

[burythehatchet]

90. PERFECT

:rofl:


:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

93. i feel that way frequently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. You know given that NAFTA destroyed national manufacturing in Mexico

I think you are wearing some very nice rosy glasses there

By the way, that is not the way it was sold in Mexico and all the side agreements were never implemented. They were put in place to compromise with the left and if they had been implemented then it would have improved living conditions, and knocked off our immigration crisis all in one....

The fact that the Mexican Government has to run a propaganda campaign to convince the population that the land is quickly getting gobbled up by monsanto is a good thing, should tell you a lot.

[mkultra]

108. frankly, i dont know a great deal about NAFTA

so you may be right on this aspect.

I do "believe" i know a couple of things.

Specifically, that the estimated worst case scenario of net job loss for the US as around 900K jobs.
That manufacturing job loss in the US actually DEcreased after NAFTA.
the manufactured goods trade deficit increased by around 10% due to NAFTA.

I wouldn't say NAFTA was good, but im not really sure it had a meaningful impact on the credit crisis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. It had an effect on the economy and accelerated the

current round of globalization as we know it

But many of our current wave of immigrants are farmers who's lost the land they had under the Ejidos

And given my dad's factory was forced to close when it could not compete with first American and then chinese goods... not a pretty picture

[mkultra]

117. how long ago did this wave occur?

i thought Mexico eliminated Ejidos in the early 90's

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. 1995 and under the law they are still there

This concentration of land is directly related to NAFTA

[mkultra]

120. please explain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. Under Nafta many ejidos have been forced to ahem sell

prime land to Monstanto and other companies, which has led to a massive centralization of land in foreign hands

This is also setting the stage for a revolution, and this was the prime reason for the uprising in the south, which is not over, and the Military has no control of the southern states involved either.

NAFTA has really made a mess of the country side

[mkultra]

125. all very interesting. ive never looked at the actual effects of NAFTA on Mexico.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. I lived though some of them

I was a red cross paramedic (and instructor) the day that civil war started

Turned on CNN.. story breaking I guess it was a slow day in the studio.

I printed the Conventions before going to work and highlighted some relevant sections regarding neutrality. as we were army reserve at the time

When I got there the Army Colonel in charge was there with mobilization orders, which, since this was an internal conflict were ilegal. Nothing scarier than quoting chapter and verse and refusing an illegal order

Long story short, we were no longer part of the reserves, going to WW II... but it got ugly and it has gone down hill from there, between the drug lords and that... but NAFTA has had a bad effect in Mexico It is just as popular as it is amongst labor here

[BzaDem]

14. How is signing into law a bill that is veto-proof contributing to the crisis?

[Kitty Herder]

123. Agreed. Well said. nt

[mkultra]

124. except for the Glass-steagal thing which isnt true.

and is really the only thing pertinent to the current financial crisis.

[ThomCat]

41. People who worship Bill Clinton won't accept

that any he did was less than wonderful for poor people.

But you are right, his "Free Trade" policies gave us NAFTA and caused a huge amount of the damage. Republicans didn't do that. Clinton did.

He went along with Republican efforts at deregulation, famously triangulating in on issues by moving to the right, and in doing so he contributed to the house of cards that is now falling down.

We had the tech bubble on his watch, and he did nothing to take that as a warning and prevent future bubbles. He listened to Greenspan as if the Tech Bubble was a one time aberration that could never happen again in any other part of the economy even when people were already warning about a real estate bubble back then.

The fact that we had the tech bubble to begin with, and all the losses from the dot com bust, can be largely put the feet of Clinton's Finance team.

So, yes, the current state of the economy can be attributed in part to Clinton. Anyone who insists that Clinton is blameless is probably just too Doe Eyed to see beyond Red and Blue.

[mkultra]

51. wow, wrong in almost every way.

first off, im not really a clinton supporter but i do argue with freepers about who is to blame for this mess regularly.


He did not "go along" with deregulation. The dem congress joined with the republicans to overcome his veto threat.

the tech bubble is a common occurrence during any technology eplosion. It happened in auto and rail as well.

Clinton had nothing to do with this bubble and it couldn't be stopped. The strong economy of the day created venture capital that made companies try to outgrow each other in an attempt to dominate thier sectors. It was a giant horse race that had to end.

There where no sustained loses from the bubble burst. We just went straight back to pre bubble levels.

[ThomCat]

56. You obviously have no clue.

I worked in Telecom. The effects of the tech bubble are still being felt. No sustained losses? Are you out of your mind? We lost vast amounts of entrepreneurial talent, small companies, and diversity in offerings that have not come back, and won't for a long, long time. Instead we now have nothing but surviving behemoths that keep getting larger.

Clinton couldn't do anything to stop the bubble? Do you really think the President is that powerless with the Treasury and the Bully Pulpit? Do you think all presidents are equally helpless? Are you saying that this is a structural weakness in the authority of the President? Is Bush equally helpless, and therefore blameless? Or is this a dispensation from responsibility that you only grant to your favorite president?

[mkultra]

73. or you dont

i STILL work in telecom. and i know what the tech bubble was and has become. The nasdaq was on a straight growth pattern until the giant tech bubble started. Everyone knew it would crash because the business model was "growth before profit" The eventual goal was to be the biggest in a given sector and kill off the rest. Once companies started to win, the game came to a close. the nasdaq dropped before its straight growth line for a year or two then got right back on track.

[mod mom]

138. Amen!

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Like Job-Obliterating Almost-Free-Trade Status For China?

Dramatic financial deregulation that he signed despite virtually no Democrat voting for it?

Admit it: you hate Bill Clinton's penis, that's what this is really about (:sarcasm:).

[Greyhound]

50. LOL! I liked him, or wanted to like him, the first two years until the collusion

and sell-outs really got rolling.

One thing he did do for me was confirm just how pointless voting has become and maybe always was. It is always a choice between a bullshit sandwich and crap souffle. Those that control the parties are the same shitheels and they will ensure there is no real choice offered.

To quote someone, "There is no justice, it's just us".

[mkultra]

54. your statments are false, the bill had a veto proof vote.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Which Statement Is False?

Be specific, please.

[mkultra]

74. well, this one for starters.

Dramatic financial deregulation that he signed despite virtually no Democrat voting for it?

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Then What's Your Understanding Of This?

"On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).<3> On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

And as to the pen, Louis Uchitelle wrote regarding Sanford Weill, CEO of CitiGroup: "A trophy from the victory -- a pen that President Bill Clinton used to sign the repeal -- hangs, framed, near the magazine covers."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E2D71F3EF936A25754C0A9619C8B63

Clinton, Rubin, and the rest of that crew were paid handsomely by Weill for this disgrace - and you and I are left paying the enormous bill.

[AtomicKitten]

7. The pro-corporate agenda has been active for decades.

[mkultra]

8. i happen to be ok with coorporations

i just don't think they should have a voice in congress or special rights. They should, in fact, be more restricted.

[burythehatchet]

66. and dismantling it is now the greatest challenge we face as a society

[AtomicKitten]

110. it will be just the start of social justice in this country

[natrat]

9. you stfu-4 words for ya-Financial Services Modernization Act

"Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have criticized the Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis, arguing that while "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 deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly". wikipedia

basically that freak gave it all away to the banks

[mkultra]

15. veto proof

"The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. <11>" wiki

blame dem congress, they joined up with the repubs to push past clinton.

and STFU.

[Greyhound]

19. You imply that margin was achieved against his wishes which is not true. n/t

[mkultra]

20. actually, wiki implies it, not me

[MannyGoldstein]

45. And Handed The Signing Pen To The CEO Of CitiGroup

Well done!

[mkultra]

53. well, in truth, the repeal of Glass-Steagall

allowed for the creation of CDO's and MSBs. but this vote was passed despite Clintons veto threat with a veto proof vote.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

12. yeah.

NAFTA has nothing to do with our vanished economy.

[mkultra]

83. its impact is minor compared to the Bush financial actions.

[Romulox]

13. NAFTA and MFN/China have decimated the Rustbelt. nt

[mkultra]

17. these items are not really responsible for the meltdown

you may have disagreed with these moves but the US economy during Clinton was robust and strong. Bush wrecked it.

[Romulox]

21. Nonsense. Clinton's economy was a bubble that burst before he left office

All the tech jobs that we were selling out the rustbelt for were supposed to make us all rich.

Like most cons, it worked on our sense of greed.

[mkultra]

26. the tech bubble had nothing to do with Clinton

this kind of bubble is common with all new technologies. It just so happened that these companies reaped the benefit of huge amounts of available cash that came directly from the strong Clinton economy.

These techs where growing regardless of loss in order to dominate their market sector. hardly Clinton's handiwork. nice try though, im sure the freepers would like to use that one.

[Romulox]

32. If he doesn't get the blame, he shouldn't get the credit. And yeah, Freepers love NAFTA

and "free trade" with China. That's just one thing they and Clinton have in common (another being a love of the War on Drugs.) Since both of these represent a big difference from my p.o.v., it's kind of silly to try to smear me as a freeper, when it's your hero who was the center/right posterchild. :hi:

[bemildred]

34. Freepers should get a Darwin Award for supporting "free trade".

They don't need to make a living, what more do you need to know about them?

[mkultra]

35. actually , freepers hate China and blaming Clinton for this economy is VERY RW

Hes not my hero, but i know better than to slam him on the meltdown. Bush is the one that gets the blame and frankly, that should be clear to anyone that stands against him.

Also, i dont know of anyone who attributes the proliferation of new internet technology to Clinton.
Gore is more responsible than Clinton for that, and frankly, i thank him.

[amandabeech]

113. How often do you go over there?

They'd love your theories because you think Clinton had nothing to do with the '90s tech bubble.

A LOT of freepers like Free Trade like most Republicans.

Only the PaleoCons like Pat Buchanan don't like Free Trade, and the freepers don't like Buchanan because he didn't like the war in Iraq.

[mkultra]

114. Freepers hold Clinton to blame for the bubble and this economy

i work with a couple of them and we argue about this shit constantly.

[amandabeech]

116. I think that over the past couple of years, they've been in the minority.

n/'t

[mkultra]

118. perhaps regarding the current economy

but i would suggest you locate your local freeptard and ask him about the tech bubble thing. Thats still firmly in their minds. Blaming the current economy on Clinton seems to have migrated to the "left"

[amandabeech]

143. It hasn't migrated.

Some of us could see it coming before he took office.

I did op research for one of his primary opponents and it was clear what his economic leanings were.

This is my last post on this thread.

[sendero]

22. If you had to pick one cause..

.. of this mess, there are several things worthy of consideration.

But at it's heart this mess is a failure of financial regulation.

Starting with the disastrous passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which removed regulatory oversight from the Credit Default Swap. The CDS provided a bogus layer of "insurance" for the Collaterized Debt Obligation.

This act was passed in the final days of Clinton, but by mainly Phil Gramm over the objections of the Dems. Since it was attached to an important must-pass bill, Clinton signed it.

Once that was in place, it didn't help that Bush was another deregulation Kool-Aid drinker who was happy to "let the markets work".

Once again we find that people who believe in the infallibility of "free markets" are morons.

[mkultra]

28. negative ghost rider, that pattern is full

if you needed to pick one cause, it would be the Bush approval to F&F to start aggressively marketing CDOs.

Read the op please.

[sendero]

37. Without.....

... the CDS, the CDO would have never gone that far. I've done my own research thanks.

[mkultra]

39. regulated and reasonable sales

of CDOs where not the problem. It was a nexus of Bush policies that caused it. Read the op.

[bemildred]

23. Well, it's Raygunomics carried to its final conclusion, is what it is.

Clinton just went along when it got too chancy. He doesn't get any points, but it wasn't his idea really either. So he was just an opportunist.

[razors edge]

24. First of all...

Has anyone asked Clinton if he still supports the reversal of GS?

Second of all, it doesn't take 3000 pages to write a "Free Trade Agreement. It does take 3000 pages to write a treaty so convoluted that a hundred lawyers couldn't describe it to the average person in an intelligible way. These treaties have hurt the average worker on both sides of the borders and benefited the speculators who sponsored them, as was the intent.

Personally, I think you got it right with Woodrow Wilson.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

Edit: sp, been a long day.

[bemildred]

27. Yeah. Wilson is good, but he asked for it.

Giant ego will get you every time.

[razors edge]

70. Yes, it will.

That is the change I believe in.

[amandabeech]

115. Got Clinton. n/t

[mkultra]

30. the fed system was good

it helped protect against the concentration and fear by adding elasticity.

[razors edge]

36. And didn't that work out just grand?

[mkultra]

38. worked fine until bernanke

Greenspan did a great job.

[razors edge]

63. Greenspan has admitted he fucked up.

Bernanke will too one day, but not until it will sell his book, or Ron Paul fries his ass again.

You know, its one thing to tell a citizen they are paying a tax to support their nation. It is entirely another thing to steal their money in a hidden tax that most don't even understand.

Doesn't seem like a very progressive thing to be doing to the working poor and middle class.

[slipslidingaway]

71. The model he was following was flawed...

that was a great statement by Greenspan.

[razors edge]

80. And that statement was enough

for some to ignore the flaw and think him more wise for his all too late conclusions.

So our leaders continue with their agenda to prove that more ice would have saved the Titanic.

[slipslidingaway]

82. Yes and the people will never get anywhere if they keep

playing the game of Bush bad, Clinton good...mistakes were made in both administrations.

[mkultra]

88. your right!!!

we should embrace Bush's policies as being no worse than Clinton's. Im surprised i hadn't seen it until now.

[slipslidingaway]

104. Why are you making stuff up...the Bush gang should be in jail

for their crimes.

IMO it is not as black and white as you would like to believe and good luck with that view.

[mkultra]

109. im not sure what yoru talking about

ALL of my points are factually supported. And the BUSH comment was sarcasm meant to demonstrate the overall point of the OP.

[Odin2005]

106. Ron Paul is a Libertarian nut job.

Sad that Libertarian anti-Fed BS has infected the left.

[razors edge]

145. Paul know more about finance

than you or I ever will.

You obviously know very little about the Libertarian party platform or you wouldn't be calling them nut jobs.

But then again, you could be one of those anti-choice, anti civil rights, xenophobic yet enlightened liberals I've never heard of.

[Odin2005]

146. I call them nit jobs because I know their party platform.

They are a mix of Randoid nuts, Austrian School nuts, survivalist nuts, and Corporatists that like smoking pot. Libertarianism is a bankrupt ideology based on BS economics and BS conceptions of human nature.

[razors edge]

147. So,

as Keynesianism economics is over the cliff in flames twenty feet from impact just like every other fiat monetary scheme before it, you call those who warned of just such a situation nuts.

Do you blame the Democrats for the failings of the Republicans and vise versa?

The last time I checked, the Libertarians have not been in charge of our economy, that would have been the Dems and Repubs who have delivered us to this point in time, not that I ever expect either of their ideological purists to ever step up and take credit where credit is due. They seem to prefer to take credit out of thin air, when in reality they are stealing money from little old widows on fixed incomes.

How progressive.

I don't support every part of any political ideology because of the simple fact they all rely on the lowest common denominator of being against anything the opposition is for, until a bi-partisan position will allow them both to achieve a more complete theft of the nation.

The very idea that the treasury is capable of printing bonds but not interest free dollars is ludicrous. Continue to delude yourself that working to earn money to pay the interest on the debt to a group of anonymous private bankers is in your, and your children's best interests.

[Odin2005]

148. Keynesians haven't been in change for 28 years. Monetarism has ruled since Reagan.

It's going to take Keynesianism to fix this economy. Libertarians will never be in charge because libertarianism doesn't work.

[Odin2005]

105. Wait a sec, you got it backwards.

Green-Shit is a Randoid asshole who blew bubbles on purpose. Bernanke is a half-ways decent Keynesian who studied up on the Great Depression.

[mkultra]

111. and then caused one.

[Odin2005]

144. No. His "dumping money from helicoters" comment shows he's trying to whip deflation in...

...the bud before it causes catastrophe.

[Greyhound]

68. In the words of Henry Ford, hardly the model of a "bleeding heart liberal",

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning"

It is nothing but a blatant Ponzi scheme, legalized only because they cut the parasites in for a slice. It has never once delivered the prosperity and stability it promised and has in fact exacerbated the fluctuations of the stock markets and created a steady decline in the value of the USD as well as being an ever-growing drain on the real economy.

[mkultra]

76. im afraid i fail to see how the fed meets these actions

all the fed does is create a buffer for banks to temporarily borrow from to prevent bank runs that could otherwise lead to a crash.

i think its done its job in that respect.

[Greyhound]

142. "Hello, I'm here for an argument". "No you're not". "Yes, I am"...

[jazzjunkysue]

42. No. They were too busy destroying american family values.

Just ignore it. They're out of power, now.

[mkultra]

52. frankly, i could care less about that kind of stuff

Im an Obama fan from the start. I just know this argument from the RW assholes i argue with.

[JNelson6563]

44. Well...there *was* NAFTA

and that was pure Clinton. Surely you can handle a fact such as that? We here in Michigan have been bleeding because of it for years, shit we're nearly on life support!

We need manufacturing jobs people! Sure there were lots of shitty jobs in restaurants and shops when America was on a credit/equity binge! Minimum wage jobs by the truckload! Take three, they're small!

Are you gettin' my point here skippy or am I typin' to fast for you? "STFU" indeed!

Julie

[KG]

64. true enuff. since the early 80's both partys have gleefully rubberstamped policies that enabled the

de-industialzation of america.

but to deny the part clinton and nafta have played on the slow collapse of economy is akin to sticking one's head in the sand.

[mkultra]

78. Nafta wasnt great, but it has nothing to do with our financial crisis.

[Odin2005]

107. NAFTA was a fucking disaster.

Giant Sucking Sound...

[KG]

128. heh. i long ago gave up trying to point out the obvious to the willfilly obtuse.

[eridani]

47. This started way back with Reagan

Clinton went along with deregulation, and so was part of the problem. Bush the Second was of course far, far worse.

http://www.truthout.org/121008R

The administration talked about confidence building, but what it delivered was actually a confidence trick. If the administration had really wanted to restore confidence in the financial system, it would have begun by addressing the underlying problems - the flawed incentive structures and the inadequate regulatory system.

Was there any single decision which, had it been reversed, would have changed the course of history? Every decision - including decisions not to do something, as many of our bad economic decisions have been - is a consequence of prior decisions, an interlinked web stretching from the distant past into the future. You'll hear some on the right point to certain actions by the government itself - such as the Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to make mortgage money available in low-income neighborhoods. (Defaults on C.R.A. lending were actually much lower than on other lending.) There has been much finger-pointing at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two huge mortgage lenders, which were originally government-owned. But in fact they came late to the subprime game, and their problem was similar to that of the private sector: their C.E.O.'s had the same perverse incentive to indulge in gambling.

The truth is most of the individual mistakes boil down to just one: a belief that markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Looking back at that belief during hearings this fall on Capitol Hill, Alan Greenspan said out loud, "I have found a flaw." Congressman Henry Waxman pushed him, responding, "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right; it was not working." "Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan said. The embrace by America - and much of the rest of the world - of this flawed economic philosophy made it inevitable that we would eventually arrive at the place we are today.

[DutchLiberal]

58. Funny how many DU'ers think nothing ever went wrong before Bush...

[Greyhound]

62. You're not supposed to notice that here, shh.

:hi:

Want to sponsor an immigrant?

[mkultra]

77. immigrant?

i do hope your not referring to Obama.

[Greyhound]

141. Nope a pack of Greyhounds. We're still outta here. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

69. You can start with Hamilton, or jump in with the Fed, or you can do the Clift's notes version

and start from St. RayGun but whichever way Clinton contributed to a real degree. Its really stupid to try and dump the kit and caboodle on his head and its probably an exaggeration that he was even a principle but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that Bubba didn't hose us any during his time.

I don't believe that many on the left are fair to the Big Dawg either. The Reagan Revolution truly swung the pendulum so far that Clinton had little practical choice than to govern pretty much just as he did. Even now, with their whole philosophy blatantly discredited there is still a rightest vibe in the air that will likely take quite a few years to reverse in any meaningful way.

We do not have the carrot of greed to drive the public to accept changes like the Republiscum can con folks into buying and we'll have them trying to distract, distort, and misrepresent the ultimate carrot of survival and eventual flourishing that we have to cajole the public with.

[mkultra]

79. ahh, finally, a reasonable mind in what has become a RW echo chamber.

this is very true. I wrote this to address the supposed "left" in their blame of Clinton for the debacle.

[mwei924]

84. Well obviously Hillary didn't...

...but you can argue to what degree Bill Clinton's econ policies had a role (repeal of Glass-Steagall for example). Most of the blame belongs to Bush, but I think Clinton also perpetuated the notion of the free market rules/deregulation.

[mkultra]

86. i think you are a bit late to this conversation.

check the thread for glass-steagall arguments in motion. :)

[mwei924]

87. I just skimmed through the subject lines.. lol.

Saw a lot of arguing on free trade.

[mkultra]

89. ill sum up

Clinton, threatened to veto G-S but was bypassed with a veto proof vote. Counter point?

[mwei924]

95. It still happened under his watch..

He may not have wanted it, but he was forced to take it. So I guess the real argument here is that Clinton was "forced" to play a part in this debacle. But it still played a part.

[mkultra]

98. he was powerless to stop them

his only involvement was being alive when it happened. The bigger point im making is the comparison of responsibility between Jr. and Clinton.

[mwei924]

101. Of course, Bush takes the cake.

But the notion of deregulation and letting business do whatever was in place long before. So really, a smaller chunk of blame should go around to every President since Reagan.

[mkultra]

102. well, every system of government rules

is a construction of several administrations. Most of the financial deregulation was done around Clinton, not through him. But none the less, they all have a minor role.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

94. Don't know much about how the financial industry was deregulated, do ya?

What you wrote sounds good but it has little to do with reality and is a re-write of history .... a very distorted and misleading re-write.

[mkultra]

99. well then hot shot. feel free to elaborate.

[Better Believe It]

134. Well, you asked for it so here it is

Once again here's the hard documented facts for the record.

------------------------------------

Blame The Subprime Meltdown On The
Repeal Of Glass-Steagall
The Consumerist
April 17, 2008

A lot of blame has sloshed around for the sub-prime meltdown, from greedy borrowers to greedy mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan, but if you want the real culprit, it was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act. On November 12, 1999, the champagne must have been shooting from the walls at Citigroup, which had worked behind the scenes for over 30 years to get the act overturned. After recovering from their hangover, they and their banking buddies went on a sub-prime lending orgy. But what was Glass-Steagall and how did it use to protect us?

Glass-Steagall was passed under the Roosevelt administration in 1933 in direct response to the Wall Street shenanigans that ushered in the Great Depression where banks shoved their own depositors into buying the stocks the banks were dealing. The basic idea was to keep banks from speculating with the savings that American citizens were entrusting within their vaults.

Now, on the one side they could sell mortgages to homeowners, and then invent fancy investment structures which they sold on Wall Street. Because they were "covered" on both ends, banks felt free to sell increasingly dicey mortgages, just so long as another sucker was picking up the garbage. This sucker was picking it up because he had a plan to repackage it and sell it to another sucker, and so on. Eventually we end up with no-doc stated income interest-only option-ARM no money down mortgages being repackaged as "sound investments" being sold as "stable assets" for city pension plans to park their money in. (See "Subprime Meltdown As Told By Stick Figures").

We can only imagine the level of machination exerted over those 30 years, but we do know this. Robert Rubin was Secretary of Treasury, which had oversight over Glass-Steagall regulation. Days before he resigned, Glass-Steagall was repealed. Just over a year later, he became chairman of the Citi executive committee, with an annual compensation of $40 million, a position he still holds, despite Citigroup's $24 billion in subprime-related losses.

Please read the entire article at:

http://consumerist.com/381032/blame-the-subprime-meltdo ...

--------------------------------------

Repeal of the Act

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s.

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors . They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

------------------------------------------------------

Here's how the Senators voted on the final bill that President Clinton signed into law.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 354 Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 8
Present 1
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---90
Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
McCain (R-AZ)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r ...

---------------------------------------
Statements in support of bill that repealed of Glass-Steagall Act





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: CHRISTI HARLAN
Friday, November 12, 1999 202-224-0894

GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY
FOR GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT

Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, made the following statement today in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law:

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it.

"Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

-30-

-----------------------------------------

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 12, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT FINANCIAL MODERNIZATION BILL SIGNING

Presidential Hall

1:37 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you and good afternoon. I thank you all for coming to the formal ratification of a truly historic event -- Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes have actually agreed on an important issue. (Laughter.) Stay right there, John. (Laughter.) I asked Phil on the way out how bad it's going to hurt him in Texas to be walking out the door with me. (Laughter.) We decided it was all right today.

Like all those before me, I want to express my gratitude to those principally responsible for the success of this legislation. I thank Secretary Summers and the entire team at Treasury, but especially Under Secretary Gensler, for their work, and Assistant Secretary Linda Robertson. I thank you, Chairman Greenspan, for your constant advocacy of the modernization of our financial system. I thank you, Chairman Levitt, for your continuing concern for investor protections. And I thank the other regulators who are here.

I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach and Congressman LaFalce, and all the members of Congress who are here. Senator Dodd told me the Sisyphus story, too, over and over again, but I've rolled so many rocks up so many hills, I had a hard time fully appreciating the significance of it. (Laughter.)

I do want to thank all the members here and all those who aren't here. And I'd like to thank two New Yorkers who aren't here who have been mentioned -- former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, who worked very hard on this; and former Chairman, Senator Al D'Amato, who talked to me about this often. So this is a day we can celebrate as an American day.

To try to give some meaning to the comments that the previous speakers have made about how we're making a fundamental and historic change in the way we operate our financial institutions, I think it might be worth pointing out that this morning we got some new evidence on the role of new technologies in our economy, which showed that over the past four years, productivity has increased by a truly remarkable 2.6 percent -- that's about twice the rate of productivity growth the United States experienced in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the last quarter alone, productivity grew at 4.2 percent.

This is not just some aloof statistic that matters only to the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street economists. It is the key to rising paychecks and greater security and opportunity for ordinary Americans. And the combination of rising productivity, more open borders and trade, working to keep down inflation, the dramatic reduction of the deficit and the accumulation of the surplus, and the continued commitment to the investment in the American people, research and development, and new productivity-inducing technologies has given us the most sustained real wage growth in more than two decades, with the lowest inflation in more than three decades.

I can tell you that back in December of 1992, when we were sitting around the table at the Governor's Mansion, trying to decide what had to be in this economic program, the economists that I had there, who are normally thought to be -- you know, you say, well, they're Democrats, they'll be more optimistic -- none of them believed that we could grow the economy for this long with an unemployment rate this low and an inflation rate this low. And it's a real tribute to the American people.

So what you see here, I think, is the most important recent example of our efforts here in Washington to maximize the possibilities of the new information age global economy, while preserving our responsibilities to protect ordinary citizens and to build one nation here. And there will always be competing interests. You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other.

It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.

Now we have to figure out, well, what are still the individual and family and business equities that are still involved that need some protections. And the long, and often tortured story of this law can be seen as a very stunning specific example of the general challenge that will face lawmakers of both parties, that will face liberals and conservatives, that will face all Americans as we try to make sure that the 21st century economy really works for our country and works for the people who live in it.

So I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves, including being proud of your differences and how you tried to reconcile them. Over the past seven years, we've tried to modernize the economy; and today what we're doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated walls and granting banks significant new authority.

This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition. It will also protect the rights of consumers. It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs of underserved communities -- something that the Vice President and I tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the community development financial institutions, but something which has been largely done through the private sector and honoring the Community Reinvestment Act.

The legislation I signed today establishes the principles that as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that act. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the law, we must first show a satisfactory record of meeting the needs of all the communities the financial institution serves.

I want to thank Senator Sarbanes and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on the CRA issue. I want to applaud literally hundreds of dedicated community groups all around our country that work so hard to make sure the CRA brings more hope and capital to hard-pressed areas.

The bill I signed today also does, as Congressman Leach says, take significant steps to protect the privacy of our financial transactions. It will give consumers, for the very first time, the right to know if their financial institution intends to share their financial data, and the right to stop private information from being shared with outside institutions.

Like the new medical privacy protections I announced two weeks ago, these financial privacy protections have teeth. We granted regulators full enforcement authority and created new penalties to punish abusive practices. But as others have said here, I do not believe that the privacy protections go far enough. I am pleased the act actually instructs the Treasury to study privacy practices in the financial services industry, and to recommend further legislative steps. Today, I'm directing the National Economic Council to work with Treasury and OMB to complete that study and give us a legislative proposal which the Congress can consider next year.

Without restraining the economic potential of new business arrangements, I want to make sure every family has meaningful choices about how their personal information will be shared within corporate conglomerates. We can't allow new opportunities to erode old and fundamental rights.

Despite this concern, I want to say again, this legislation is truly historic. And it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation -- when we understand we may not be able to agree on everything, but we can reconcile our differences once we know what the larger issue is -- how to maximize the opportunities of the American people in a global information age, and still preserve our sense of community and protection for individual rights.

In that same spirit, I hope we will soon complete work on the budget. I hope we will complete work on the Work Incentives Improvement Act, to allow disabled people to go to work -- and I know Senator Gramm has been working with Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords and Senator Moynihan and Senator Kennedy on that.

There are a lot of things we can do once we recognize we're dealing with a big issue over which we ought to have some disagreements, but where we can come together in constructive and honorable compromise to keep pushing our country into the possibilities of the future.

This is a very good day for the United States. Again, I thank all of you for making sure that we have done right by the American people and that we have increased the chances of making the next century an American century. I hope we can continue to focus on the economy and the big questions we will have to deal with revolving around that. I hope we will continue to pay down our debt. I still believe in a global economy. We will maximize the opportunities created by this law if the government is reducing its debt and its claim on available capital. So I hope very much that that will be part of our strategy in the future.

But today we prove that we could deal with the large issue facing our country and every other advanced economy in the world. If we keep dealing with it in other contexts, the future of our children will be very bright, indeed.

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask all the members of Congress to come up here while we sign the bill. Thank you. (Applause.)

President Clinton Signs Repeal

[xchrom]

126. recommend

[depakid]

130. Joseph Stiglitz disagrees

The Clinon administrations share PLENTY of the blame.

Reappointing Greenspan and repeatdly passing or promulgating far right deregulatory policies EVEN AFTER the collapse of LTCM in 1998 are direct causes of the current siituation- aznd all occured on Clinton's watch and with his express approval.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/10-1

[slipslidingaway]

135. Posted the same story to direct attention to this new thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=408356&mesg_id=408356

Agree there is plenty of blame to go around.

[slipslidingaway]

131. Joseph Stiglitz: 5 Disastrous Decisions That Got Us into This Economic Mess

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=408356&mesg_id=408356


"...No. 2: Tearing Down the Walls

As we stripped back the old regulations, we did nothing to address the new challenges posed by 21st-century markets. The most important challenge was that posed by derivatives. In 1998 the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Brooksley Born, had called for such regulation-a concern that took on urgency after the Fed, in that same year, engineered the bailout of Long-Term Capital Management, a hedge fund whose trillion-dollar-plus failure threatened global financial markets. But Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, his deputy, Larry Summers, and Greenspan were adamant-and successful-in their opposition. Nothing was done..."

[slipslidingaway]

132. The Woman Greenspan, Rubin & Summers Silenced

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/370925/the_woman_greenspan_rubin_summers_silenced?rel=hpbox

"...But more than a decade ago, a woman you're likely never to have heard of, Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission-- a federal agency that regulates options and futures trading--was the oracle whose warnings about the dangerous boom in derivatives trading just might have averted the calamitous bust now engulfing the US and global markets. Instead she was met with scorn, condescension and outright anger by former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers. In fact, Greenspan, the man some affectionately called "The Oracle," spent his political capital cheerleading these disastrous financial instruments.

On Thursday, the New York Times ran a masterful and revealing front page article exposing the culpability of Greenspan, Rubin and Summers for the era of dangerous turbulence we live in.

What these "three marketeers" --as they were called in a 1999 Time magazine cover story--were adept at was peddling the timebombs at the heart of this complex crisis: exotic and opaque financial instruments known as derivatives--contracts intended to hedge against risk and whose values are derived from underlying assets. To cut to the quick, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers opposed regulating them. "Proposals to bring even minimalist regulation were basically rebuffed by Greenspan and various people in the Treasury," recalls Alan Blinder, a former Federal Reserve board member and economist at Princeton University, in the Times article.

In 1997, Brooksley Born warned in congressional testimony that unregulated trading in derivatives could "threaten our regulated markets or, indeed, our economy without any federal agency knowing about it." Born called for greater transparency--disclosure of trades and reserves as a buffer against losses. Instead of heeding this oracle's warnings, Greenspan, Rubin & Summers rushed to silence her..."

[slipslidingaway]

133. Retail sweep programs and bank reserves, 1994--1999

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedlwp/2000-023.htm

"Abstract: Since January 1994, the Federal Reserve Board has permitted depository institutions in the United States to implement so-called retail sweep programs. The essence of these programs is computer software that dynamically reclassifies customer deposits between transaction accounts, which are subject to statutory reserve requirement ratios as high as 10 percent, and money market deposit accounts, which have a zero ratio. Through the use of such software, hundreds of banks have sharply reduced the amount of their required reserves..."


http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/01/0101ra.pdf

"...The use of deposit-sweeping software spread
slowly between January 1994 and April 1995, but
rapidly thereafter...

[slipslidingaway]

136. CHINA CAN WAIT - May 1999 Briefing Paper #83

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_china

"After rejecting a proposal to bring China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in April 1999, the Clinton Administration is working to negotiate an accession agreement in time for the WTO ministerial meetings in Seattle later this year. <1> The proposed deal would be harmful to workers in both the United States and China, primarily for three reasons:


....The rapidly growing U.S. trade deficit with China and its consequences

Since 1985, U.S. imports from China have grown 25% per year, while exports to China have grown at less than half this rate. The result is a rapidly growing trade deficit for the U.S. (Figure 1). <3>...."