Skip to main content

THIS IS  AMAZING---FROM 1999 WHAT SCHUMER AND SUMMERS SAID ABOUT DE-REG !

Next time you see Charles Schumer denouncing the GOP for financial deregulation, SHOW HIM THIS !

Both he and Lawrence Summers both waxed triumphant in joining the GOP in the Rape of the American Economy.

So what happens?

Obama appoints Summers his chief economic adviser, and Schumer postures as having been against what he was ardently championing !

More pointedly.....GOP RICHARD SHELBY VOTED "NO" !!!

Isolated Quotes Immediately Below.

Full NYT Article URL right after the quotes.

''The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown,'' said Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat of Nebraska. Others said the legislation was essential for the future leadership of the American banking system.

''If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive.''

''Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said. ''This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.''

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Originally posted to Jay Diamond on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:11 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Most people on dkos apparently (0+ / 0-)

    out of fealty to the Democratic Party and President Obama are fully prepared to support the sentiments behind those quotes regardless of what we've seen happen of late.  It won't be long before they claim that the actions taken in the late 90's have nothing at all to do with the problems we face now.  Wait for it...

    •  I think you're wrong there. If there even IS a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cory Bantic

      "most people" clique on dKos, it won't be one that supports the Dem party or Obama 'come what may'.

      Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
      I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:21:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh horseshit (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickT, SallyCat, fhcec, Gemina13

      I haven't seen a single soul at Dkos defending the deregulation of the financial industry. Whatever happened to being a reality based community?

      Is it so hard to avoid hyperbole and/or outright fabrication?  

      "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

      by Triscula on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:24:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh horseshit back at ya. (0+ / 0-)

        Of course people can't support deregulation in this environment, but they'll defend Summers, Geithner, et al BECAUSE Obama chose them.  It is only logical to conclude that ultimately they will rationalize their past bad acts.  Or claim that President Obama has been "tricked" which is painfully dishonest or insulting to Obama.  Either way, it is not good.

        •  Haven't even seen much of that (0+ / 0-)

          I've seen a couple of people suggest that Obama was "tricked", which I agree is ridiculous.  I haven't seen many people defending Geithner and Summers 'bad acts'.  I know there are people who don't agree with you that Geithner has engaged in bad acts.  I haven't seen anyone showing much love for Summers.  Most of what I have seen in defense of Obamas picks for Treasury has been a "let's wait and see what happens" view and also some pretty clear headed rebuttal of the really crazy shit that's been posted this weekend.  

          Personally, that's also my view.  I'm not a fan of the hyperbolic and breathless at either end of these discussions.  I'll agree that there are a small number of people who become pretty wound up about any perceived attack on the administration.  However, most of the extreme diaries and commentary I've seen this weekend have been at the other end: Over the top, rantish diaries and comments declaring Obama to have "betrayed" us and bullshit like that.  I've even seen people talking about impeaching him.  

          It's become painfully apparent that many of our most sensible, talented and focused writers have stopped visiting and posting since the election.  That screwy diary about the Moyers interview hitting the top of the rec list just blew my mind.

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

          by Triscula on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 04:11:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're wrong there. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane

      It's fairly obvious deregulation has caused most of our problems. What's so maddening about Obama is that he had a perfect chance to select people who were on the right side of this issue but instead went with people who would make the financial elite feel comfortable. That is to say, the very people who got it wrong. And then he listened to them and followed their advice. For all his talk about change, he has turned into a sheep in wolf's clothing.

  •  You may think caps are useful (4+ / 0-)

    But they're really not.  Yes, we get that you feel very strongly about this (and it was a pretty bad stance to take, but almost everyone did back then).  But the all caps title just makes everyone think this is some raving lunatic who can't possibly have a rational argument.  Try writing the diary when you're not seething with anger, and you might get somewhere.

    Yes, there are progressives in the rural South. 50 States.

    by Racht on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:21:36 PM PDT

  •  I HATE OBAMA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Gemina13

    HATE HIM HATE HIM HATE HIM.

    WHY WON'T HE DO EXACTLY I WHAT?

    WHY WON'T HE FIRE EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME?

    HATE HIM HATE HIM HATE HIM!

    John McCain, vi ne meritas stari en dek futoj de la usona flago.

    by verdastelo on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:25:27 PM PDT

  •  I don't think I'd single out Schumer and Summers (5+ / 0-)

    The senate voted for this change 90 to 8. At the time, the senate had a GOP majority.

    There is no question people like Schumer and Summers were implicated in pushing this, but the really shocking thing is the degree to which this change was OVERWHELMINGLY approved, on a bipartisan basis.

    The House was pretty overwhelming too.

    •  Schumer actually opposed it pretty strenuously (6+ / 0-)

      before it was clear that it would pass.  Glass-Steagall was a de facto subsidy to Wall Street, and he wanted it to keep on doing it thing (no other country has investment banks, because no other country had the kind of firewall between banking and investment we had).  Notably, less than a decade after Glass repeal, there's no more Wall Street left, the investment banks having either collapsed or converted to banks.

      Also worth noting: the more important vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley was just about straight party line.  Once that first procedural vote passed, the vote to pass was just a formality.  eg, the 90-8 vote isn't at all representative of the actual sentiment.

      We are building a team that is continuously being built. - Sarah Palin

      by burrow owl on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:52:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aww geez...give it up.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rserven, skohayes

    10 or 20 years is a couple of lifetimes in politics. What was said in 1999 versus what is reality in 2009 is an incomplete comparison. Try starting with the beginning of deregulation in the early 1980s...through the early 1990s. 1999 the damage was already done.

    On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. President Obama

    by SallyCat on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:35:55 PM PDT

  •  And I'd add (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, SallyCat, LordMike, getlost, Gemina13

    the overwhelming nature this change was approved by suggests the degree to which there is no one in the mainstream of American politics currently who is not compromised/implicated by the current crisis.

    Obama is not exempt, at least by associatiation. But the same was true of Bush. The same would also have been true of McCain or Hillary Clinton. They all were a part of this consensus.

    This tempers my anger, because I know that there is no viable alternative to Obama because the realistic alternatives are all just as implicated. At least I have some hope with Obama that he will do at least somewhat better than any conceivable alternative.

    There are alternatives, then. But they are all considered fringe/non-serious people - Ron Paul, Kucinich, etc..

    Of course, if things get really bad, this whole consensus could collapse entirely if the status quo can't solve the crisis it created - then you'd have something like the Tagentopoli scandal in 92/93 in Italy where the whole postwar Italian political system collapsed as the scale and pervasiveness of the system's corruption was fully revealed. But be careful what you wish for - the big winner here was Silvio Berlusconi. And I'd actually say that wasn't a very bad outcome. Systemic collapses can have much, much worse outcomes - see Adolf Hitler for example.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site