Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Move to Revive Glass-Steagall

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:11 PM
Original message
A Move to Revive Glass-Steagall
http://washingtonindependent.com/69877/a-move-to-revive-glass-steagall

A Move to Revive Glass-Steagall
By Mike Lillis 12/7/09 1:45 PM


Ten years ago, Congress dismantled the decades-old Glass-Steagall Act, breaking down the firewalls between commercial banks and securities houses, and helping Wall Street firms grow into the too-big-to-fail institutions that exist now. There’s been a great deal of debate about the extent to which the death of Glass-Steagall contributed to the global economic collapse that plagued the past two years — not to mention the trillions of dollars in government bailout cash that were required to stabilize the nation’s banking system. But some House Democrats place the blame squarely on the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and today they introduced legislation to reinstate it.

“{The repeal} was a recipe for disaster because these banks were empowered to make large bets with depositors’ money and money they didn’t really have,” Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), who sponsored the new bill, said in a statement.

When many of those bets, particularly in the housing sector, didn’t pan out, the whole deck of cards came crumbling down and U.S. taxpayers had to come to the rescue. The absence of the protections in the Glass-Steagall Act essentially turned these financial giants into quasi-government entities because they were only able to survive the recent collapse with government assistance.


Hinchey’s proposal would force the giants of Wall Street to choose whether they wanted to be commercial banks or investment houses, but they couldn’t be both. (A simple lender, for example, couldn’t also be an underwriter.) Co-sponsors include Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Jay Inslee (Wash.) and John Tierney (Mass.).

The House Rules Committee will meet Tuesday to consider the proposal before it can move to the chamber floor as part of a larger tax bill the Democrats have to pass by the end of the year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. YES!!!!!!!! It would be a good place to start...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. It will be interesting--and instructive--to see who does NOT support this
It would be a good start to fixing the mess that we're in, I hope we can get it passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. agree with you
nothing like a little show of hands as we ramp up to elections. can they stretch this out so they are voting right before they go home for election day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Paul Volcker has championed this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DebbieCDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. Glad to see my rep (Inslee) supporting
I'll send him an email of thanks. He's great about responding to petitions and emails -- I've gotten many responses from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. +100
:kick:

republicans try to say it was loose lending by fanny and freddy but it is the repeal of Glass-Steagall that actually did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. Good. I even know a few Republicans who are
in favor of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alsame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Dupe.
Edited on Mon Dec-07-09 03:30 PM by alsame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is great news. Hope they do it. It can not have escaped anyone's notice...
that, as long as Glass-Stegall was the law, we never had a meltdown of this magnitude. Reinstating it would be a good start to re-regulating these institutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OutNow Donating Member (538 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great News for Henry B. Gonzales fans - I'm one
Years ago the great congressman from San Antonio Texas, Henry B. Gonzales, was chair of the House banking Committee. He was a real progressive and fought for consumer's rights. When the first efforts began to repeal the 1933 Glass Steagall Act he warned that the bill would pass "over my dead body". And that's what happened. Gonzales retired in very ill health in 1998. The act was repealed in 1999.

I am very happy to see my congressman, Pete DeFazio, is one of the cosponsors to bring bring back the regulation ten years after its repeal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkoleptic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. This gets pretty close to the main nerve, so we can expect to hear the pig-men sqeal loudly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Let them sqeal
They had their change to shape up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. long overdue. great news!
K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why don't we outlaw cross state banking too? Or cross parish banking for that matter?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. so, you're not in favor of re-instating Glass-Steagall? Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
39. Explain yourself.
You appear to be making fun of those that would restore Glass-Steagal.

It is the near universal opinion here on DU that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act led directly to the abuses that caused the economic meltdown. Do you have something to say about this? Is your real name Phil Gramm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Ignore him. He loves trolling like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. There is no reason to not allow a firm to compete in both lines of business
as far as the abuses, all we have to do is let a huge bank fail and the abuses will retreat. Remove the term "too big to fail" from our thinking and there will be far less risk taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-09-09 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Oh yeah.
If we had allowed the "too big to fail banks" to fail we would now be in the second great depression. Trusting the greedy to exercise restraint is no way to run a financial system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azureblue Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. mon frere
I think you been eatin' too many nutria down dere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
50. I don't regulate banks with you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nc4bo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. Damn, it's about time. What took 'em so long?!
The moment Obama became POTUS, I thought this would be one of the first items on his to-do list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
17. Duh.

That would be some legislation with legs. All these Republicans keep yelling that the repeal happened under Clinton. OK, so by saying that they've admitted that repealing G-S was a mistake.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
18. Here's hoping
The repeal of Glass-Steagall enabled the giant casino that used to be the people's pensions and their kid's futures.

I doubt whether this bill would go anywhere, but let's just pretend for a minute, shall we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-07-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Yes, I often take these mental excursions to a land the people elect representatives that, in turn,
represent them. Then I wake up in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanti Mama Donating Member (625 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. When I worked at the House of Morgan in the 70s, the GS act
was HEAVILY enforced. We could not lunch with the folks at Morgan Stanley or even with those at our own bank who managed high net worth investment accounts. It was a good thing and should be reinstated. Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
21. k&r nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
22. does the proposal have a name?
i want to write to my rep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #22
36. Hinchley amendment to H.R. 4173
It has to get out of the Rules Committee first.

They meet today at 3pm Eastern.

Rep. Louise Slaughter is the chair of the rules committee.

You might call or email her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
23. Long overdue to reinstate this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. Should have been an executive decision made on day 1 back in Jan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #24
37. And how would that work, exactly?
The pres does NOT write the laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
western mass Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
25. Don't hold your breath.
The idea that the corporate Dems in the senate and white house would let this happen is just...laughable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. We need to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
Trouble is, the average American has no idea what G-S was and how it DIRECTLY relates to the banking crash. And the MSM sure as hell won't educate them. Too busy with their 24/7 coverage of Tiger Woods. Or Jon Gosselin. Or missing white women. Anything but REAL news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. +1
Hate to sound like a fatalist, but it would require a major uproar to have G-S reinstated.
Given that much of Congress (obviously not Hinchey though) is in the back pocket of the financial services industry, it's doubtful that they will alienate their sugar daddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #25
46. Yes, there's alot of tools in Congress on both sides.
The Corporations say 'jump,' and they say 'how high?' It makes regulation that much harder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deutsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
27. It should never have been dismantled.
It should be revived, but I don't know that there's any backbone in Congress to go against the masters who, like Bob Dylan once sang, "make the rules for the wisemen and the fools."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
28. Way to go! Here is a song for the Congress critters who are taking this on!
Crashing into the Future (The Granite Countertops)

We got somewhere to go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
29. Absolutely! K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
30. One small step for Man
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
33. Restore Glass-Steagall and make insurance companies have to follow
Anti-trust laws....those 2 things would do a great deal for stopping the mess we are in from happening again. That and investigating and raiding the banksters assets so we can get some of our money back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
34. Please email or call these members of the House Rules Committee in support of this amendment.
Chairwoman Louise M. Slaughter New York

http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=506&Itemid=150


James P. McGovern Massachusetts
David Dreier California
Ranking Minority Member

Alcee L. Hastings Florida
Lincoln Diaz-Balart Florida

Doris O. Matsui California
Pete Sessions Texas

Dennis Cardoza California

Virginia Foxx North Carolina

Michael Arcuri New York

Ed Perlmutter Colorado

Chellie Pingree Maine

Jared Polis Colorado
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
35. Glass-Steagall was rendered toothless under Reagan
http://www.answers.com/topic/depository-institutions-deregulation-and-monetary-control-act">The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 essentially reversed Glass-Steagall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
38. This is what should be done!
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 11:59 AM by Enthusiast
And some knew it was wrong then, in 1999.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
40. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
43. Far past time.
A measured response to keep us from storming the Bastille.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
44. How EXACTLY did the repeal of GS lead to the credit crisis?
Can anyone walk me through, step-by-step, how one led to another?

Repeal of GS allowed banks to be bigger, yes. But are we saying that the global meltdown would not have happened if GS hadn't been repealed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
45. We jumped into the flames and got burned the last time.
Funny how we forgot, and did it again (1929, 2009).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
47. FINALLY!!!!! ONE BIG HELLL YA!!!!! ABOUT TIME!!! DO IT!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. What the hell is Congress waiting for?
Get this one done NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
51. it should never have been repealed in the first place
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC