Skip to main content

The foundation for the current financial crisis was set in motion by Bill Clinton in 1999 with the Financial Services Modernization Act.

Timeline for Glass Steagal

• Did away with restrictions on the integration of banking insurance and stock trading(Glass Steagall  Act of 1933)

Under the Old law  banks, brokerages and insurance companies were barred from entering each other’s industries
• Commercial banking and investment banking were separate entities in 1997 and 1998 alone the banking  insurance and brokerage industry lobbyist spent  over $300 million dollars to get this legislation passed.

• It is also important to note that  the lobby was hard at work on this legislation - $58 million in campaign contributions to Democratic and Republican candidates,
• $87 million in "soft money" contributions to the Democratic and Republican Parties and
• $163 million on lobbying of elected officials.

Not surprisingly, Texas Republican Phil Gramm(chairman of the Senate Banking Committee) himself collected more than $1.5 million in cash from the three industries during the last five years $496,610 from the insurance industry,
$760,404 from the securities industry, and $407,956 from banks.

It is more interesting and funny to note that part of the Gramm-Leach Billey Act consisted of modifications and amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act – an anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods.  Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA – one to reduce the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.

The later provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups who have used the CRA provisions as a leaver by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases the banks have offered loans to business men or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.

And here today this country stands poised on the brink of economic disaster – led by the reincarnation of Nero who isn’t even that good of a fiddler(and am wondering if he can even pronounce the word properly) while the media with a good assist from the clinton campaign and its supporters leads the way into  a major morass that is racial unrest by way of comments made by a retired minister over five years ago right after the 9/11 attacks had taken place.

To what standard is one held when you make someone accountable for the statements made by another individual – not just current statements but statements made years and years ago. Is this part of the presidential "vetting process" if so then at what time do we start looking at the people who are around the Clintons right now and researching all their statements going back at least  five years as well.

The Clintons have repeatedly touted their years of working for civil rights and helping minorities – I wonder if this is part of what they are referring to or maybe Hillary’s work on the board of Walmart?

What does it say about the people supporting the Clinton candidacy that these things being set in motion by this campaign and being justified in the name of "vetting" a candidate – what does it say about the kind of people that would support a Clinton Candidacy

• Racism is not a major issue for them – most feel there is no such thing as racism those that complain about racism in America are  just whiney crybabies looking to use racism as an excuse

• There most likely are many supporters who are part of (either directly or indirectly) of the coven that benefited(and still does) from the largess that is part of the corporate lobbying that goes on in Washington DC

It would be great if you could poll these concepts in a clear way and get factual data as a result. Most people – Clinton’s included will tell you – "I’m not a racist" all the while turning their heads while those around them exhibit exactly just that. Besides there are not many foolish-stupid-or bold enough to claim that they are outright racist.

So a campaign that is backed by supporters who at the very least have racial issues and who have no problem inviting those in society who embrace a racist mentality to "hop on board.",  some of which have benefited as they themselves attest to "the good Clinton years" which included some of the lobbyist largess that Washington DC politics have become known for – that has disenfranchised the average American and detoured the process by which elected officials represent the wishes of the PEOPLE that elect them to office by serving the wishes of those with the most money to  inject into their campaigns and the coffers of their close personal friends/constituents.

No wonder they view the Obama campaign with such hostility by very virtue of what his campaign is based on – changing the way we DO politics and government – changing and eliminating as much as possible the influence lobbyists have in Washington DC must be like burning acid to them. Or more like spraying raid and watching them squirm or in this case shriek and harangue.

A person wishes to lead this country who has no qualms about resorting to measures that further divide an already divided nation, who tries to hold their opponent to standards that they themselves cannot meet. This person has no measurable experience other than that obtained being  the wife OF an elected official and who has threatened and tried to subvert the political process already set in place for selecting a nominee to represent the party because it’s expedient

That person is Hillary Clinton and im sure she does not "approve" this message.

take back your country people - it doesnt BELONG to them...

for more information see the  following links:

Mischeif from Mr. Gramm - NYTimes Article

The War on CRA

Senate Banking - Financial Services Modernization Act - Ammendments

The quotes are excerpted from an article here:

Clintons Republicans deregulate US financial system

Originally posted to digitalmuse on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:13 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

    Corporate lackey Bill gave the banks, brokerage houses and insurance companies exactly what they wanted.

    If Hillary Clinton wins, the Democratic Party loses.

    by Paleo on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:21:40 AM PDT

  •  Well the truth did set you free! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Isn't Lehman Bros. one of Hillary's (6+ / 0-)

    top donors? Isn't her campaign funded, in part, by a lot of the same institutions that are responsible for this mess and benefitted from the de-regulation?

    Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

    by Dreggas on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:25:24 AM PDT

  •  and Wendy Gramm was on e-ron's board of directors (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    audit committee, if memory serves me right

  •  Add this (4+ / 0-)

    Also the American Prospect has good articles that put alot of this @ the feet of G/S reform.
    Go to the Wiki page...

    Good work!

    What is really damning is that the Clinton admin didn't want Dems to win the mid-terms.

    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.  

    I will drink the Clinton Campaign Champagne 'cause Kool-aid is for kids!

    by Shhs on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM PDT

  •  Please don't talk about things that you really (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weltshmertz, unionsally

    don't understand. The G.S.  Act of 1933 was no longer useful and it became a chokehold on the economy/finance in a world where one can transfer a billion dollars digitally and in less than a few seconds. Moreover, the deregulations of 1999 were necessary and not at all innovative. In fact, we were following a global trend rather than leading it. We had no choice in the matter since the ECB was engaged in the same process and after the Japanese and the British one were considering the same reforms.  

    So please, don't read a stupid article somewhere and come here and regurgitate it on us and pretend that you know banking regulations and their consequences because you really don't. The 1999 deregulations were penned down by Lawrence H. Summers, one of the leading economist in this country. The day you know more about the economy than him and me, i would listen to you.

    This is by no means a defense of president Clinton (i don't care much for him), but it is a defense against non-sense.

    "Men make their history, but not under the conditions of their own choosing" Guess who said this?

    by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:29:29 AM PDT

  •  Her record stinks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musicalhair, revgerry

    Her husband didn't do much to help the core Democratic voter.   If that's the record she is running on it's not a good record.

  •  Lots of blame to go around (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    starting with deregulation. Like the greedy bastards could police themselves! Our nation needs to go on a financial diet. I'm waiting to hear from BHO's campaign. I'm giving them time because we didn't get into this mess overnight so I don't expect them to come up with an immediate plan. But here is where I would start.

    1. Tighten up accounting rules and financial reporting. Nobody has any idea how bad the situation really is with regard to hedge funds and credit default swaps and sub-primes. The problem is that until these things are quantified and reported, everybody's suspect. When financial institutions aren't lending to other financial institutions, how is the small investor supposed to know what's going on? Make corporations and boards of directors more responsible to shareholders by making shareholders approve executive compensation.
    1. In addition, impose tighter penalties for fraud on company executives and accounting firms and credit rating agencies.  Someone, somewhere, has to be responsible to the small investor. And pension funds are made up of small investors.
    1. On a broader scale, we need to bring our national financial house in order. This is going to hurt. Raise taxes on the wealthy, but also make savings tax deductible for middle and lower income taxpayers. Reduce deficit spending with a timeline to a balanced budget. Put a tax on fuel and use those tax dollars to fund alternative energy research and development.
    1. Get the hell out of Iraq. We need to have a national dialogue about where our tax dollars go. We can be a broke military power or we can cut defense spending, close military bases and stop trying to enrich the military industrial complex by inventing enemies and threats to our way of life. Like Granada. Like Iraq. Like Iran.
    1. Tighten our laws on media consolidation. Where the hell was the media on the economy for the past 7 years? Actually even longer than that. The truth is that all our big institutions are letting us down. The government, the media, corporations. Who's looking out fo the little guy?

    Oh, and BTW, I've been saying for the last week that when the economic crash came, the Repubs would be pariahs so I wasn't worried about McCain. The Repubs are going to get the blame for this mess and rightfully so. The Wright thing seems kind of petty when you're dealing with people's standard of living and whether they'll be able to afford bread.

    Right now, I'm mad at every smug republican who has defended this cancerous presideny. Bah!

    •  A few points: (0+ / 0-)

      (1) Done.  Companies beginning in fiscal years after 11/2007 have greater disclosure and transparency requirements as to valution methodologies (FAS 157).

      (2) The greater problem was poor risk assessment, not fraud.  Plenty of small investors were greedy and stupid, just like the big dogs.

      (3) Obama is running on pay-go.  He's also promised free ponies for everyone, though, so we'll have to wait and see which is the more important: fiscal responsibility or ponies.

      "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

      by burrow owl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:15:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just one smal point about item # 1 (0+ / 0-)

      Shareholders and board of directors have all the powers they need to have. Shareholders can fire their CEO and 2/3 of the board if they want (example: Walt Disney Inc about 5/6 years ago, the shareholders forced the CEO to step down). The problem is that small shareholders do not exercise this prerogative because most of the time they don't know each other. There are ways for shareholders to get in touch with each other and organize themselves, but they fail to do so. In the annual or quarterly meetings of shareholders, only big shareholders and brokerage companies show up. It is a collective action problem, but a problem of more regulations i believe.

      "Men make their history, but not under the conditions of their own choosing" Guess who said this?

      by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just one more thing about item # 5 (0+ / 0-)

      I don't watch news TV (haven't watch a news program since 1984), but i can tell you that some in the written media have waived some red flags about a year ago. The FT, WSJ, and The Economist have all written good articles outlining the rise of a possible serious problem in the (read: global economy) economy about a year ago (read FT of end 2006 early 2007).

      I think people need to turn off their TV, stop watching and listening to those idiot talking heads who prior to the Enron collapse were yelling buy, pick up a good newspaper and read. And if they don't understand an article get online or go to a library and read a book about it. This is active learning and we are becoming or have become a nation of passive learners; we know everything but half-ass knowledge.

      "Men make their history, but not under the conditions of their own choosing" Guess who said this?

      by Mutual Assured Destruction on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  AFAIK, CRA was always toothless, and a relic (0+ / 0-)

    of the early 20th century.  

    "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

    by burrow owl on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:11:12 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site