Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Glass-Steagall. Can we all agree on this?

Posted 9 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 1:02 p.m. EST by number2 (914)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I think this is the one thing OWS should have on it's agenda right now.

We should get some candidates to run on this as independents.

203 Comments

203 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by debndan (1145) 9 years ago

Oh, absolutely. But, as I've said in numerous posts on this forum, we also need to defeat these corporate shills in their own primaries as well.

We do need a healthy amount of independents, but we need to also upend these incumbents before the general elections too.

It's in the primaries that our Democracy is first being purchased, then the general elections merely 'seal the deal'

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 9 years ago

We need to make glass-steagall official. I believe the most acceptable way is to ratify this one demand at GAs with 90% majority - with some time to read the law and all that good stuff.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Yes, and here's an interesting link I just found that some Freshman's produced this year (2011) to help explain the Meltdown (Nice job): Brooksley Born -- "The Woman Who Knew" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3C_O-Btko

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Remember, you have to register under a party to vote in most primaries. I also advocate an enormous primary blitz as we can perhaps take over one of the parties instead of having one of them take us over. I also think that throwing out every mayor (mostly Democrats) that opposes our right to assembly being an easy feat since they usually win by a couple hundred votes.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

that's how we got rid of bob bennet

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

here's another Glass-Steagall thread

Let's get focused and bring back Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, we don't need to REINVENT the wheel because bringing this Act back will create an even playing field once again...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/lets-get-focused-and-bring-back-glass-steagall-act/

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

glass steagal should be restored -
but back to the basics -
how do you get thru grover's & koch's house R block?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

er it's bee presented ?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Thanks MattLHolck! And here's some History on the G-S so we all get on the SAME PAGE! Let's get this done and over, and then, next...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/

[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

You have my vote! That's a great start number2! Good luck

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Glass-Steagall was only one of a number of measures passed to try and correct the system based on lessons learned during the Great Depression. It was only partially repealed in the 1980's, and I assume it's those repealed portions you want reinstated.

By the way, another revision of the system based on leassons learned from the Great Depression was the Banking Act of 1935. This act removed the Federal Reserve from political control and diminished the influence of the private banks on the Governing Board ( see http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-3903505.html ). The removal of political control was intended to stop manipulation of the money supply for political ends ( see http://www.jstor.org/pss/1807803 ).

Ironically, many who say it was a mistake to change one act incorpoating lessons learned from the Great Depression, Glass-Steagall, are also in favor of trashing another, the Banking Act of 1935, to impose more political control over the Federal Reserve. In advocating change to the Banking Act of 1935, these people are just as guilty of meddling in Depression Era reform as Congress was in changing Glass-Steagall.

Restore Glass-Steagal AND leave the Banking Act of 1935 alone.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

are you saying to give the fed more power?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

NO. I'm saying that people who messed with Glass-Seagull AND those who want to mess with the Banking Act of 1935 are undoing lessons learned from the Great Depression and should be VERY careful where they tread.

Most people (not all) I have engaged with here regarding the Federal Reserve don't understand it's operation or it's history, and they suffer from a remarkable number of passionately held yet incorrect beliefs. Their positions are sophomoric and dangerous. Passion does not good policy make.

Note I HAVE encountered a small number of people here who DO understand the Fed and it's history. I am commenting on those that simply repeat the appealing opinions of others, have done no research of their own, and advocate massive change to a vital institution they know nothing about.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

have you read the creature from jeckyll island?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

that makes sense. But do you think there is anything we can do to make sure wall street cronies, Greenspan, don't get the Chairmanship of the FED?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Yes. By not appointing them.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

Could we elect them based on merit, and not solely on expertise?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Ironically, using 'merit' would mean they have demonstrated performance in a similar environment. The only environment that would be applicable would be work at one of the PRIVATE banks BELOW the Governing Board. Thus, we would end up having to appoint Bankers ! Of equal import is the recognition that these big meltdowns come far and few between, so there really ARE no Bankers with 'experience' in how to handle them; we'd elect 'insiders' without necessarily gaining the experience in response to major events we really need.

As it stands, we typically choose renowned economists to chair the Fed. In the most recent case, we have been fortunate to have a man, Mr Bernanke, with very widely acknowledged credentials who ALSO spent perhaps more time than anyone studying the Great Depression. This enabled him to avoid the mistakes of the Great Depression, which most now believe could have been stopped if not for political interference in the Federal Reserve ( Note Hoover's political appointees, the Secretary of the Treasury and Comptroller of the Currency were both on the Fed's Governing board and forced the Board to let banks fail per 'capitalist' principles. )

In the end, it is the President who nominates and the Senate who approves the Chairman (and many other members of the Board). They COULD put anyone they want in the position. As it stands, they typically reach into academia for acclaimed economists specifically because they worry about letting bankers run the system. Greenspan was widely regarded, and it is only in hindsight that we now understand he made mistakes. This is normal in an ever changing climate, regardless of the field being discussed.

I subscribe to the ZeitGeist ideas in one and ONLY one area; Knowledge, Civilization, and our Institutions are living breathing life forms that evolve over time. We have a long history of USING and deploying technology with catastrophic results (DDT, Thalidomide, nuclear, etc) then LATER "evolving" our positions regarding their use. In the recent crash, we saw the emergence of 'ratings' applied by computers, and computers selling securities to computers across international lines. The bankers, being pure capitalists, did exactly what we know they will do; they used this technology to 'innovate' and generate huge profits. It is only after the fact that we now see we need to 'evolve' the system with appropriate regulatory controls.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 9 years ago

Yes, this is our one demand.

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 9 years ago

Most of the OWS protesters I've met are completely disregarding the American government as a means to change. I say we fight to get it back, wrestle it from the hands of the corporations, thinking that may be a good place to start.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

first the G-S Act, next the White House...I have a dream...shared by many,...i think? love the OWS

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

Did it really work the last time - did it go far enough? Obviously not, or we wouldn't be here again.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

they repealed it. that's why it didn't work. it wasn't in effect.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

I know; perhaps we really need a Constitutional Ammendment - something as difficult to override as it gets, and stiff criminal penalties.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

yup

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 9 years ago

do away with the privately owned fed. then do away with huge investment banks. those should be left to the local banks. not somebody u have never met in an office behind a desk. you do away with those two things then u have no need for the act. if people would take charge of their own investments and get away from large investment banks then maybe the 1% would start loosing out. sorry but i dont trust someone i have never met with my money. hell loan sharks dont do it either. why in the hell would people do this. educate yourself about the right way to invest money. with your local banks or in medals so you will have wealth. not paper.

[-] 1 points by LNAB73 (82) from Oklahoma City, OK 9 years ago

we should...but that alone will no curb the corruption of our gov't via unchecked $$ buying influence. If you don't kill the $$ dragon buying our gov't... we will be here again.

[-] 1 points by ediblescape (235) 9 years ago

We do not need any candidate. We are leaderless movement which will replace the candidate system.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

Reinstate Glass-Steagall !

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Here's another good bubble story...Dr. Mark Cooper on oil speculators..he nails it too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ii_Xo_vnI&feature=related

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 9 years ago

We need a better way to fight back. Protesting is courageous! But we have to do very big things to solve our very big problems. We need a new vision for America and a revolution to move it forward. An occupation just doesn't cut it.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

my thought too

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Your should read the full Senate report on what caused the meltdown before trying to fix it. The summary is at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=9e856be4-bba4-416e-bd2e-0ba4d5eb5092 and it ends with links to the various sections of the full report. You're fooling yourself if you think Glass-Steagall alone will prevent another crisis.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I don't think anyone know's how to get out of this mess but we can learn from our mistakes and not repeat this one.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Efforts to incorporate lessons learned are not just happening at the regulator level but at the international level as well. The banker for the world's Central Banks is the Bank of International Settlements. You can read their last annual report at http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2011e.htm and their last quarterly report at http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1109.htm . In doing so, you will see references to the Basel III regulations requiring more reserves, reduced leverage, and higher liquidity in the international banking system.

I cannot say with confidence that the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the melt-down.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

OK so I'm putting Rico down on my list as a supporter of glass-steagall.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

No. I'm open to the idea, but you have not convinced me that the meltdown was the result of Glass-Steagall repeal. Can you connect, in a factual manner, the repeal of Glass-Steagall to the meltdown and show a causative relation ? I'll warn you ahead of time that I insist on facts before forming an opinion, and I check them.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

sorry i already put your name down.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

sorry I can't know all the details of the worlds financial system. Maybe some thing other than GS is the secret. But it's a good guess.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

LOL ! OK then ;o)

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

sorry I can't know all the details of the worlds financial system. Maybe some thing other than GS is the secret. But it's a good guess.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Let's have our first Huge Victory by bring back the neccesary regulations that make this country work; the ones some lawmakers seemed to think we didn't need anymore, which now history is proving them wrong, twice again...here's one who got it right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg&NR=1

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Everyone should agree on restoring the Glass-Steagall Act. Everyone should also agree to pass the Congressional Reform Act. Instead, #OWS wants to march on Washington to end Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. It appears that the stealth leadership of #OWS is in the tank for President Obama. Once the 99% understand this, the 99% becomes 33%, if that.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

REALLY?!! co-opted already. I'm libertarian and am for Glass-Steagall if that doesn't say 99% I don't know what does.

[-] 1 points by enough (587) 9 years ago

Great. Not counting the bankers and the elected officials they have in their hip pocket, it's 99.9% for restoring Glass-Steagall and we need to do it yesterday. The bankers will do everything in their power to prevent its restoration and that tells you all you need to know. Hit them hard where they eat.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

we need to swamp the republican debates with glass-steagall questions. We need to be in the audience and outside and force them to pay attention.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

yes! Once we bring back G-S act and close all loopholes of oil speculators, then watch Capitol Hill..Bush taxes or campaign reform next, or...

[-] 1 points by MJMorrow (419) 9 years ago

This is a big one and one we definitely need to pursue.

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 9 years ago

Bringing back Glass-Steagall is a great idea. It needs to be part of a simple, concise message to the American people. We need to get the money out of our politics. Your last paragraph is very true. For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for. We need to get the money out of our politics. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the lap dogs of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Then let's do both, Reinstating the G-S Act and Campaign Finance Reform! Both on one platform, but that's it to start with; otheriwse, I feel we will only get a watered down version of both, agreed? After all, LSN45 is right, one hand washes the other...and once we get both accomplished, we will have the major power In DC to get the rest done next.

Thoughts here?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 9 years ago

no, I don't agree. I don't agree in political solutions at all. not while our government and economy is controlled by big business. change will happen through revolution. it has just begun and a new system will take the place of this one. there will not be a slow tweaks and corrections to the system. the system will be thrown down suddenly and violently. it has started and there is no stopping it.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

well if you get the chance before the revolution happens why not take advantage and vote against a corrupt politician. It's just different means to the same end.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 9 years ago

no, its not the same thing. I will not participate in a system where I am a slave.

[-] 1 points by OneMansOpinion (76) 9 years ago

I would like to applaud the idea of real concrete change. But as we have seen you can't regulate job creation. Increasing protection from unscrupulous bankers... Great idea! But ... How do we put more American's back to work?

People don't loose jobs if they loose their homes (At least not directly). But they do loose their homes if they loose their jobs.

America is becoming land Vacant factories and outsourcing moguls. The skills that the American worker had have all been taught to competing nations.

Some of those factories were closed so that the companies could improve profits for a few quarters.

There were no policies that closed the factories. The banks were not to blame for sending the jobs elsewhere and as the workers joined the ranks of the unemployed we continue to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else.

Read the labels on your clothes right now. Did you sew it yourself? Did you neighbor get paid to make it?

Apparently we don't know were the $100+ went to cloth us.

The reality is that the average household spends $12800 a year on consumer goods. 80% of these purchases are for overseas goods.

You might as well put $10240 and mail it off to China. Not sure what that figure looks like nationally but its a lot.

So whats the plan? Simple.

Insist that the government legislation country of origin labels on products. If 1% of the product is made overseas then it must be labeled foreign with the appropriate flag.

After this is done American consumers must vote with their dollars. We need to start putting faces to our purchasing decisions.

Spread the word and make it socially unacceptable to buy from countries that are not solid allies of America.

Encourage your Government to create free trade deals with its Allies and make membership impossible for countries that would sell technology outside of these alliances.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

I sent in a question for tonights presidential debate.

Submit a debate question at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57319621-503544/submit-your-questions-for-the-cbs-news-national-journal-foreign-policy-debate/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

My question was about reinstating Glass Steagall, and who on the stage would support it. Debate starts at 8:00 pm

(((Live-Stream coverage of the debate:))) http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-250_162-1335.html

They'll never use it but hey, its worth a shot.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

let's stay focused on bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act...Now, while we have the World's Attention, it's time for us to CHANGE it! And I feel the best way is to go back to the Wall Street Regulations we had in place in 1999! After all, it worked fine for 66 years! Before...

Senator Phil Gramm who helped create "legal" gambling casinos for our banks: CNN's The 10 Most Responsible for Economy Collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

President Clinton says he "was wrong" now about Repealing G-S Act and Deregulating the CFTC. My question is: why don't you help us fix it now? After all, it's your fault--you signed the new ACT into law in 1999! Why? My guess is that's where he got most his monies for his charities! He should be on TV now helping us, not throwing himself B-Day parties on VH1. He still has the influence, let's get him on Board, someone! Let him know his History/Legacy is being rewritten now... And with all due respect President Clinton, your new book on how to get American back to work, should be called: Let's Bring Back The G-S Act and Close Oil Speculators Loopholes--Sorry America, I goofed, Let me make it up to those who elected me into office...

See "I was wrong" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs3Z2Z2WMJk&feature=related

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

If Clinton is "admitting" repealing G-S was wrong that means that the establishment doesn't mind it being reimposed. Which means that it's not at all bad for the establishment, which is mostly the 1%. People need to stop with this appeal to authority and actually tell me, what is the DATA that supports reimposition of G-S? Did the crisis occur because banks with security affiliates went backrupt or without? If you go by what members of the establishment say why both protesting? Why not just sit home and cheer whatever your local quasi-fascist says?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Part of the establishment doesn't mind it being imposed. But that doesn't mean we all need to take whatever view is contrarian to the alleged "establishment". It just means that it's a politically feasible goal. I'm not sure what you mean by "DATA that supports reimposition of G-S". These matters can't be easily measured and compared. We can only look at the events that occured following the Citibank-Travelers Group merger and GLB Act and ask ourselves what wouldn't they have been able to do if these events never occurred. For instance, using Mortgage Backed Securities in order to leverage more risky loans wouldn't have occurred because they could only sell such securities because they were the ones that owned the mortgage loans. This is only an example. While I can't prove it to anyone, I'm sure thus far that "Too Big Too Fail" was a term that strictly applied to the same megabanks that grew out of mergers made legal when G-S was repealed.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

I don't care if it's politically feasible I want to know if it's a good idea. If these matters can't be easily measured why are you so sure that repeal was a bad idea? What wouldn't they be able to do? The insurance company could still have invested in whatever it wanted and gone broke. Using MBS's to mortgage more risky loans has nothing to do with repealing G-S. Too big to fail has nothing to do with banks owning other banks, insurance companies etc. If you can't prove something to anyone why are you basing legislation on it? If you don't know ask someone who does before making legal changes.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

By all means, explain your own rendition of it. However, I do believe CDOs and CDSs were regulated before GLB. But maybe you have something to add.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Well don't just "believe" it check it out. You seem to think that because you heard somewhere that G-S was good everything bad that happened after it's repeal was the result of that repeal. Think things through. Gather some actual data. Read some actual economists. You are the one making a claim on which you want action based, support it.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Alright, find me some "actual data" to support GLB.. Is there a spreadsheet you have with "actual data"??

Seriously, I want to see it.

Where is the "actual data" that you've repeatedly claimed supports your claims??

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

You are actually making the claim, YOU provide the data. I don't have to provide data because I'm not suggesting a course of action.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

No, you're making the claim that we are better off without Glass Steagall both since 1999 and in the future. Now YOU need to back it up with data..

What's the matter??

No data??

The same burden of evidence you demand from others, you can't find??

Don't you feel that's pretty pathetic??

Now go find me some data, NOW!

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

No you're the one claiming we'd be better off with Glass-Stegall and you're not the only one. I made no positive claims about whether or not you'd be better off with Glass-Stegall in effect or not. I asked questions and you dodged them. Why? Are you really concerned about whether or not reinstating G-S is a good idea? And a good idea for whom? Because you've done nothing to find out if it is other than listen to professional politicians. That doesn't seem like a sincere attempt to get at the truth to me.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

"You just want to make a fuss and have people pay attention."

If I wanted to do that, I would probably go to forums where people are critical of banks and spread ridiculous libertarian propaganda about how banks need more freedom.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

No I'm trying to actually educate. Banks do need more freedom, and less. They don't need the freedom to take stupid risks and get us to back them up. They don't need the freedom to have the Fed print more money so they can fund their losing friends.

You are proposing a specific change, so far you haven't supported that change with any specific or even unspecific evidence. That's not the actions of someone who actually wants to solve a problem, other than the problem of nobody listening to them.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

"You see you don't really care about helping the 99%, you care about thinking you're worth listening to, which you never will be."

projecting much?

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

How am I projecting? I asked some questions and you called me a shill. I presented an actual academic study and you presented a mindless repetition of what politicians and media people told you. You haven't bothered to support your beliefs or gather evidence, which you would do if you really cared if they were true. You don't. You just want to make a fuss and have people pay attention.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Why don't you go read some more corporate-sponsored "studies" while the rest of us keep thinking for ourselves??

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

You're not thinking for yourself. You're just absorbing whatever you hear on CNN and when someone questions it you get all defensive and make accusations against the source. The problem is that your accusations basically is that they work for people who disagree with. You see you don't really care about helping the 99%, you care about thinking you're worth listening to, which you never will be.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Sounds like my analogy comparing Libertarians to children was quite on point. The "data" is your immature response.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Yeah that's really mature, accusing your opponent of being immature while dodging the question.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Well, first off, your quote wasn't from me. (See above)

Secondly, I don't judge whether it's objective based on whether I agree with it or not. That's a ridiculous straw man argument you just made up.

Asking a Libertarian think tank how much they think banks should be deregulated is like asking a child how much candy and ice cream I should let them eat before they go to bed.

You will not get a responsible measured answer from either. It's always going to be as predictable and reckless as possible.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Sorry about the misattribution, I rushed my answer because you're not worth my time. You have presented zero evidence for your proposed action. You very much judge whether something is objective based on whether you agree with it or not. You learned something came from someone you disagree with and concluded that they were not objective. You made no effort to refute or even learn their arguments or the evidence they base them on. You have not so far offered a single piece of evidence, or questioned any of mine. You've made claim after evidenceless claim. You've even lied about what I claimed. You're scum.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Well, if I were to look for an objective source that actually studies the effects of GS, the last think I would do is turn to a writer that will always advocate for giving the banks more freedom to do whatever they want. That's not "data", that's ideology.

I didn't say I support GS, I only cited possible conflicts of interest that abolishing it may have caused. It's you that kept replying with all the same ideological talking points that I've heard constantly from libertarians and the right-wing fringe while you kept demanding everyone else look at it objectively.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

I see so you judge whether a source is objective is whether you agree with it or not. Yeah that's what I expected.

As for whether you actually supported GS "And with all due respect President Clinton, your new book on how to get American back to work, should be called: Let's Bring Back The G-S Act and Close Oil Speculators Loopholes--Sorry America, I goofed, Let me make it up to those who elected me into office..."

That sounds like you supported GS. Let me just check if you refered to conflicts of interest. One minute. Nope you didn't. All you did was post your baseless opinion over and over again while accusing me of being a shill. But hey, keep it up it's working. Everyone believes that the study by an actual intellectual with footnotes and actual research is less convincing than your wild-ass guesses.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Great. So your "data" is from Alexander Tabarrok?? Who works for a Libertarian Think Tank??

See, I didn't know that such agenda-based partisan nonsense was permissible as "DATA".

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't check to see if the source was acceptable to you. Send me a list of all the people who are legitimate sources according to you. Of course it's a lot easer not to stray off the approved list when you don't present any evidence. Of course you haven't actually shown that my evidence that my evidence was in any way wrong.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

Are you going to provide me with the DATA or not??

Seriously. Whether it's for or against GS, just go find me some god damn data, now!

At least go find me an example of "DATA" as you represent it for any argument on legislation.

If you can't, then just shut up, because you're obviously way too immature to be discussing anything.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Interestingly I did have a post where I cited a study, NOBODY REPLIED. I don't need data because I'm not proposing a course of action YOU ARE. So either back up your claim that your action will have good results or admit that you are basically just proposing things because you can, in total ignorance. Here, some actual data http://www.whatcausedthehousingbubble.com/docs/12.pdf "In fact banks with security affiliates were safer even when Glass-Steagall was passed. Four times safer in fact. Alexander Tabarrok "The Separation of commercial and investment banking" The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers". Glass-Steagall was put in mainly to raise the costs of the Morgan banking interest to benefit the Rockefeller interests."

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Right. It's all there, the problem; the cover-ups. How come we don't here about this stuff daily on the local or national news? why? I don't know. I grew up in 60-70's (before cable) when most thought that when we received news from news organizations, it was the facts (or close), after all, that's when 60 mInutes was born, which besides PBS, that's still the next best thing I feel we have now for accurate un-biased option now...

My question for the TV Networks is: You all daily pose this question of how do we fix our Economy? Come on you all went to College, you read the newspapers, watch stations, emails, blogs, etc. So why can't you all united and help us get the obvious accomplished. And that is to Reinstate our Regulatory system of 1999, before they shattered it! Or in other words, The Glass-Steagall Act and our old CFTC Act, which I still don't know what that was called, any help here?

We need your help hear TV, Papers, and Websites: please uncover this crisis and help us all solve it, now! After all, you have the power to let all America know overnight what really went wrong, and how we are all going to fix it now!!...and if you don't, all that says to me is that you are WS Puppets too--who owns you btw? Is that it? Please help explain it to a simple mind...

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Ok, how is it "obvious" that we need G-S back? What is your theory on how that would help and what data do you have to support that theory? Corelation does not equal causality.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Thanks for that great question. I think it's all hear, please start-off by veiwing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU&feature=related

And the rest of my agrument is here; here in 3 Forums in one, on how to do it by first learning what went wrong first: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/

[-] 0 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

OK so you link to an eight minute video, I'm 2:10 in and the only relevant evidence shows that concentration was increasing in the industry (leading inevitably to TBTF) BEFORE GLB. So you've already wasted 2 minutes of my time. You could have just written what you regard as evidence, but no, instead you expect me to believe that a political speech is evidence.

Ok, now I'm 4 minutes in and what is this guy talking about LTCM which happened while G-S was in force! So his evidence that we shouldn't repeal something is a total failure by that thing to prevent disaster! What this guy says is right, something should be done about the disaster. But he is dead wrong about the problem with banks in the 20s is that they had security affiliates. The actual data says that banks with affiliates were 4 times safer. Banks ARE the things that need a perception of safety to be safe. If banks were really prevented from being associated with such things they would have to either a) give up fractional reserve banking or b) cease to exist.

The other link doesn't have ANY evidence but just links to other places that allegedly have evidence, most of them videos.

Quite frankly if this is the best evidence against repealing G-S then I've won the argument.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

are you from Goldman-Sachs? The wriiting is one the wall, and any lobbyist can see that, right?

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Just out of curiousity would Goldman-Sachs benefit or lose from reinstating G-S, because I have no clue and I suspect neither do you. When you resort to implying I'm some sort of shill or propagandist instead of actually providing evidence it kinda tells me you don't have an argument.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Great another bunch of goddamn videos none of which will be relevant if you're running true to form. Why don't you try actually WRITING SOMETHING.

Hell why don't you try answering the question. Would GS benefit from reinstating G-S?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

All I can say is to take a history lesson from a high schooler, that's it's. Have a good night. I have Meals on Wheels at 8 am--time for bed--Out.

"The Women Who Knew" Freshman History Day Schools 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3C_O-Btko

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

The fact is that you have no evidence and you're angry about it. That someone made a video isn't evidence. I don't owe you more of my time to view things that don't prove your point and even undermine it. So why are you angry at me? What have I done? Is questioning your proposed course of action so wrong? Is that how you hope to solve problems, by attacking those who question your proposals?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

no.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Ok, got any actual evidence there? Would you know what would constitute evidence?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

whose side are you on? Just curious... This might do it: Here's a Freshman's Class Project on subject, produced this year:

"The Women Who Knew" Freshman History Day Schools 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be3C_O-Btko

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

It doesn't matter who's side I'm on. It matters what effect the legislation is likely to have. You have produced absolutely no evidence that the effect would be positive. Then you accused me of working for Goldman-Sachs because you don't have an argument. You offer no evidence that Goldman-Sachs wouldn't benefit from repealing G-S, because you don't know. Neither do I that's part of the reason I don't accuse you of working for them, because I don't know if what you're suggesting would help them.

But thanks for linking to another over 7 minute video that has nothing to do with the subject. Really I appreciate it, because like you I have absolutely nothing to do with my time.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

And as I've said before, I feel this needs to be the OWS's first BIG Victory (as name implies)--And with all due respect, I feel you owe it to the WS Protestors to Get Something Done That They Can Really Be Proud Of--And There is Nothing Bigger on WS Than Bringing Back The G-S Act and Closing These Loopholes!

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

I feel the BEST and most EFFECTIVE way (and maybe only way) for this March to Reinstate the G-S Act will WORK is for it to not only be held in WDC, but also in every CITY on the 6/16/12, or whatever date you all decide on....that way, we have them...the jig is up Congress...we have your number....And our eduction on how we got here is the key! We all need to be on the same page....or in other words..we all know now what you all did in 1999!

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Please just remember, it's not just about holding the March or Protest in Washington, D.C (just part of it), sure that has been done before, with great and luke warm results; but, what's different about this one is that its held in every city in America, on the same day or week, or month, for ever long it takes, and with the two clear goals to start with: To Bring back G-S Act and Close these Oil Loopholes! So go to your local group, that's one thing OWS has done better and quicker than any nonprofit I've ever seen done in 40 years: To United almost every city overnight, let's not lose let this great opportunity pass us by...Now its time for clear focus!

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

If you ask me what the next Step should be? I would suggest to form a Committee/Alliance with Public Citizen http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2554 and the Former Head of CFTC Michael Greenberger to find out exactly how to Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act and how to Reel in Oil Speculators (or Close The Loopholes).

That's my A Team Working in Harmony; after all, that's what they do for a living!

Good luck my friends, I will meet you in WDC when we hold this March, whatever day that might be! I say sooner the better--And we don't let up NATIONWIDE until it's done, and we do not Elect Anyone into Office who doesn't have the Same Mind set; or in other words, they feel G-S Act must be Reinstated Now, and that we must Now also close all Loopholes for Oil Speculators! Why has a barrel of oil just shot up 20 bucks? It's not caused by supply and demand problem! PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD! Love you all! Go get 'em! Hit them where it hurts the most! And where it HELPS Americans the MOST!

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Former Head of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Professor Michael Greenberger, speaks to Congress in 2008 on the high price of oil--and he's not happy about Energy Deregulations, especially The Loopholes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbdtTGYQBMU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNp0y0SjOkY&feature=related

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 9 years ago

I completely agree!!!

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

For the March to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, here's some Pics for our Marches: go to Google Images and type this in excatly: glass-steagall act of 1933 (note: 3 days ago it was there, now it's not for me, keep searching, it's worth it. Also the same pic is found at the end of this Vid:

Who Repealed the Glass-Steagall Act? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0k2PmF-o5Q&feature=related

Check out the bottom right pic (bottom of page): WE KILLED GLASS-STEAGALL! with all of the ones who did in the background! priceless--lol. Also, you can see pics of Glass and Steagall here. Maybe at the WDC March we have two large pics: Glass on one side of the Stage and Steagall hanging on the other....

And please don't forget we need t-shirts, buttons, hats. etc, and a flier that clearly spells out our mission, so everyone can easily and quickly get on the same page; for example:

1--Reinstate the G-S Act.

2- Reinstate our old 1999 CFTC Act too.

Both with a brief description (in plain english) why each of them is central to our cause. When we get this DONE, for example, Bush taxes, forget about it, campaign reform, forget about it, and so on and so on....

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

You are so right. That's how you hurt Wall Street the Most, while helping American's the Most! We can't fix Wall Street and Create more Jobs until we make Congress break-up the Big Financial Giants; so then they have to release the Trillions of Cash they are sitting-on into the Economy--The root of How to Create more jobs! After all, since our times are being compared to The Great Depresion of 1929, that's how Glass,Steagall, and FDR fixed it 1933! Which worked fine for 66 years; until they Shattered it in 1999!

What to do about it? http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-time-for-a-million-people-march-to-capitol-hil/

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

It should be our number one demand. It would do more than any other single thing to restore the economy and create jobs.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

At the very least Glass-Steagall must be reinstated !

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Note that this only applies to fiat currencies, ditch them and go back to gold or silver and the problem goes away.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

nice quote thanks

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 9 years ago

the quotation is fromthe home page at

http://www.TheMoneyMasters.com

  • thanks
[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 9 years ago

A 3rd party will give the election to Obama by splitting the republican vote.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

I'm sick of that Trojan horse traitor. He saps the strength and initiative of the mainstream left. Look at the pathetic antiwar movement. I think that this is his main job, why he was hired. We're being played and it's working.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

i don't care. it's time we stop this nonsense of choosing the worse or the worser.

you are referring to if ronpaul broke off. but what if someone else stole votes from the left and center?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

From my little brain folks, I feel It's all here, three forums in one to help achieve our first Big Victory: Reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act and Bringing Back our old CFTC Act, before they Shattered both of them in 1999-2000! Let's mobilized and knock it out soon! Love you all--and what the OWS stands for--The Great Old USA!

Please see here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 9 years ago

Glass Steagall Will Divide Them, and reimpose Position Limits. Boom! The Bleeding Stops.


If We Break Up the Giants, Smaller Banks Will Thrive … And Loan More to Main Street

Banks receiving government aid cut loans

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-04-21-tarp-banks_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Banks that received federal assistance during the financial crisis reduced lending more aggressively and gave bigger pay raises to employees than institutions that didn’t get aid, a USA TODAY/American University review found.


If We Break Up the Giants, Smaller Banks Will Thrive … And Loan More to Main Street

The Only Way to Save the Economy: Break Up the Giant, Insolvent Banks

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/the-only-way-to-save-the-economy-break-up-the-giant-insolvent-banks.html

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

As far as an Candidates, how Senator Maria Cantwell or Retired Senator Ted Kaufman, they both tried to bring back Glass-Steagall Act in 2009.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/12/14/an-odd-post-crash-couple.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ted-kaufman/congress----not-the-regul_b_450772.html

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

52 cosponsors in the house - 48D + 4R
This "must do" goal is unobtainable - with the R money flowing
Nov 12 6PM 60 Wall St - We are the 83%

We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple – and that is popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on -
that 76% of Republicans already agree on -
that 56% of TP already agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just 99 days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
If Ohio won. If Arizona won. If Maine won. If Mississippi won - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


Ohio won. Arizona won. Maine won. Mississippi won -
I feel that using their tactics, and the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

While I agree with a lot of it, I wish you would not make such immense posts in the forum as it does drown out the voices of others. Please consider posting in multiple segments in the future so it can be addressed as such.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I am agreeing a lot with this

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

please join us Nov 12 6PM 60 Wall St "the 83%" If you cant - private message me with any ideas you want brought up
If you are not in NY, can you help us in your state?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

sure as long as i'm not the only one

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

I feel we need answers (solutions) now, more than opinions...come on folks, let's get focused and knock something out of the ball park, while we have our OWS troops...and the World's Attention! I just don't want to miss this golden opportunity to accomplish something Big!--Plus, now we have Global support! Please don't take me wrong, I love reading all of these Forums (even the extreme lobbyist)...and for me it's fascinating at the least; but now. let's all get on one page...pass the G-S Act, and then we rule...what do you all think? Cast you vote here...

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

Agreed!

And before even the elections we could right now be lobbying Congress to take up and quickly pass H.R.2451: Glass-Steagall Restoration Act of 2011 Find it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

Write to your members in Congress and demand that they co-sponsor this bill. NOW!

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

While we do not have a lot of candidates to vote FOR we have a good list of incumbents, who voted in 1999 to repeal Glass-Steagall, who we can be campaigning AGAINST.

The Congress that Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html A directory of 64 current U.S. Senators & 171 sitting Representatives who repealed Glass-Steagall in 1999.

We could be confronting candidates and demanding to know if they would support H.R. 2451.

We could be confronting incumbents and demanding that they co-sponsor and push forward H.R. 2451.

If they don't hear it from us they won't hear it.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Before we March for the G-S Act, let's learn as much about the ACT as possible:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Larouche has six candidates running for congress and each one of them supports Glass Steagall:

http://www.larouchepac.com/campaigns

See right side of the page, and scroll down. I know a lot of people hate Larouche, but he and his organization have been supporting this issue for a long time.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

I am not a one issue person.

The Larouche philosophy is inimical to everything that I believe.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Larouche believes in the same philosophy as JFK, Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln. It's called the American System of Economics. Is that what you are so opposed to?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

That is a dangerously ludicrous over simplification. And I believe a ridiculous disinformation in associations.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I can understand if you don't like the way they treat people, I don't either. But you haven't said much else beside calling my opinion ridiculous. What is it that you dislike so much about him? Have you read any of his material or just the things that other people say about him?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

He is a dangerous and deranged fascist. I learned that from seeing interviews with him over the years.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Mussolini said that Fascism is Corporatism, the joining of corporations with the government into a totalitarian system, Larouche is of course against that. But you are not saying anything specific about his beliefs that you are opposed to, so I must assume that you just don't like him personally, or just don't walk to talk about it, and that's ok too.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

I am not saying because he is not an issue that I give a damn about. You can assume anything you want to. Making assumptions makes you look like a freakin idiot. That is your choice.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I was just trying to be nice and have a polite conversation, while you prefer to stoop to name calling. But I'm sure you must have a very good reason for that.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 9 years ago

Bullshit! Disingenuous and dishonest bullshit.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mynameismoe (153) 9 years ago

So, what bank screwed any of you? What did they do to you? Give me some examples of what your bank did to you. I just want to understand what you got against banks?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

Key bank advertised a free checking account to me and so I signed up. I never used the account and so they had some "disuse" fee. I lost $20 and was really pissed off. But other people have lost their homes and much more. The federal reserve affects everyone in the country. When they print money QE2 the price of everything in US dollars goes up. They've been doing that a lot lately in order to bail out banks and lo and behold look at the prices at the grocery store!

[-] 0 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

No we cannot all agree on this because the evidence doesn't support it. I have heard person after person claim that banks collapsed because of Glass-Steagall, but Lehman Brothers didn't have a security affiliated. In fact banks with security affiliates were safer even when Glass-Steagall was passed. Four times safer in fact. Alexander Tabarrok "The Separation of commercial and investment banking" The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers". Glass-Steagall was put in mainly to raise the costs of the Morgan banking interest to benefit the Rockefeller interests.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Notice how the post I made with an actual cite to an actual study by an actual professional is being totally ignored? What are you people factophobic?

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 9 years ago

Agreed here. I remember when it was removed and coming home from work and telling my wife the foxes will now be control of the hen house down at the bank and we have to be extremely careful because the bank will sell us to any scammer that will pay them a good fee. I got scammed anyway even at that. Fortunately, I had a back up plan.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Definitely agree. However, Obama says that he would veto Glass Steagall if it were passed to him. So he must be impeached first, or, as is suggested, some candidate should be run on it.

Lyndon Larouche's organization has six candidates running for congress, all agreeing on Glass Steagall as fundamental to their platforms:

Summer Shields - http://www.larouchepac.com/summershields Kesha Rogers - http://www.larouchepac.com/kesharogers Diane Sare - http://www.larouchepac.com/dianesare Bill Roberts - http://www.larouchepac.com/billroberts Rachel Brown - http://www.larouchepac.com/dianesare David Christie - http://www.larouchepac.com/davidchristie

Their organization had been trying to educate the public on the economic crisis and its solution for decades before it even happened.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I disagree with Larouche most of the time but it is true he has been saying this for several years. And our government is so bad right now that I think even a Larouche clone would do a better job.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

So are you more Libertarian or far Left or what?

Larouche's people are quite capable. They are considered among the best private intelligence organizations in the world. They basically believe in the ideas of the greatest Americans, from the American Revolution, to Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy.

They want to remake America in the original spirit of America.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

libertarian. how familiar are you with the larouche people?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I'm not familiar with a lot of them, there is one that I keep in touch with. Why?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

i thought they were pretty neat in the beginning too. Not after i got to know them.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I've known them for many years. Familiar with their heavy handed fund raising techniques. Often abusive, its unfortunate, I think they loose a lot of support that way.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

they lost me when i discovered that the only opinion allowed was larouche's opinion. if you had a different view then all the larouche parrots would swarm you and tell you in a million different ways how you are wrong and larouche is the only one on the earth that truly understands everything. it was very cult-like and i told them no thanks after that.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

We are experiencing the UPWARD SPIRAL of inflation right now and we are doing nearly the same stupid thing that was done during the great depression.

The reason inflation is increasing is that our "investments" have not been in anything real, but rather into derivatives, on Wall Street, which are just highly leveraged bets on transactions. Nothing real to them. So the real system of production brakes down, and we have to pay more for things.

If we invested in real things, like infrastructure, I believe our currency would be more stable. In fact currency agreements have to be established to keep currencies stable over time, so that budgets set for long term development projects can be adhered to.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

you are correct on the 1st half stuff. But the government is so broke right now and is out-pacing the private sector.The private sector needs to invest but they're too scared of government meddling in the economy. We cannot spend anything on infrastructure right now. That will just put us further in the red.

The private sector has to be healthy enough for there to be any public sector projects or else we repeat the great depression. The private sector makes a profit and contributes to the gross domestic product and our standard of living 100%. The public sector first must reduce the standard of living before it can contribute anything to it. You understand taxation so i'm sure that you can see that the quickest way to get back in black is for the private sector to make money and the government to not spend it.

Don't let larouche think for you. I'm not saying he does but most everybody else in that group is just a parrot of larouche. They just regurgitate what ever he says like they're brainwashed. Think for yourself.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

That's what people say, but we haven't been saved by any wars these days have we? Wars have only made things worse for us now.

That's more propaganda from FDR's main enemy, that is, Wall Street, our same enemy.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

By the way, I think that the idea that the government is intrinsically inefficient is propaganda originating from the 1%, that is the bankers, who want to control society without any interference from the representatives of the people, the government.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

have you been to the DMV? have you been to an american university? Have you waited for the FDA to approve a drug?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Roosevelt came into his presidency during the great depression. Like I said before, the industrial development that his programs brought about made us powerful enough to win World War Two, that was quite a payoff. And generally speaking, after the war was a great booming period of the American economy.

I've heard from numerous sources that the space program paid ten dollars for every dollar invested in it in terms of economic development. I can't cite the source for you though.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

fdr was saved by the war. his policies failed for 7 or 8 years before the war.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

The investments that the government made during the New Deal paid off. They made our country prosperous, so did Kennedy's space program.

The investment has to be in the right kind of project.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

how did they pay off? again you are making claims and have no evidence. Just because larouche says so, is not a good answer.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

It is ok to print money if it is invested in the right projects, because they will produce a return on the investment that will pay for itself and then some.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

i don't think so. Not by the government anyways. each dollar printed lowers the value of each dollar in your pocket. Since the enactment of the Fed the dollar has lost 96% of it's value. Do you trust the politicians who are running this country?

They invested in Solyndra; that was a waste of $500 million. Look at the "investment" in operation fast and furious: wasted money and lives; the investment in iraq and afghanistan: again waste. The govt invested in Fannie/Freddie again bureacrats making stupid decisions that they have no business making.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Public sector projects are what will create a healthy economy for the private sector. For example, if the government invests in lots of infrastructure, a lot of manufacturing will be required to produce all the products and materials needed for that infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

this is possible but only if the private sector is reasonably healthy to begin with. The government had to collect tax or print money before any infrastructure project, NASA or military project can be implemented.

The private sector doesn't have this limitation.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I understand. I contribute to them, but haven't gotten involved. Some of the brief experiences I had going in there were bad.

However, I do think they understand the economic problem and how to solve it.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

i think ultimately they will trade one mess for another mess in the economy.

they are good salesman too. i've seen some of the brokest people- like they were homeless and were contributing to them.

[-] 1 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

The New Deal made us so strong industrially that we were able to win world war two.

The system has to be declared bankrupt and put through reorganization. Roosevelt did that in the first two weeks of his presidency. Then, we can create a national banking system that would provide credit for big projects.

Talk about the New Deal extending the depression is mostly propaganda from the 1%. Its the kind of stuff you would read in "The Economist", mouth piece of the financial district in the City of London.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

how, when everyone was broke, did it help to destroy crops, slaughter cattle/pigs and raise prices?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

You seem to be convinced that government can only act inefficiently. When Roosevelt ran the Civilian Conservation Corp, to build roads, do forestry, etc., the young workers who came out of it were in high demand with employers who recognized their effective working habits, ability to solve problems and get the job done.

Think of Kennedy's space program, which was a combination of government and private contractors. That was probably one of the most effective operations in history, just because of the motivating effect that such a challenging mission had on the participants.

This is the kind of efficient government involvement that we need once again.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

Yes you are right. We need to create more incentive for them to do a good job.

I'm convinced that they are inefficient most of the time because of lack of incentive. But they could be productive under the right conditions.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I would agree that our government is mostly bad today, but not necessarily bad. We have had great politicians at times in history, and we have some good ones today like Dennis Kucinich and some would say Ron Lawl.

I think saying that "government should stay out of it" is something like the deregulation movement that has caused a lot of our problems. Laws and regulations exist to protect us from entities that are bigger and more powerful than us.

And government's job is to promote the common good, and economic development is the greatest good. So government should be involved in those activities that improve the efficiency of the economy.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

Government improve efficiency?!! Now I know you are smoking that herb.

I agree with you though that deregulation of wall street was a bad idea. But we don't need a police state, the war on terror and drugs, the unpatriot act that ushered big brother in to our lives. Now we get sexually molested when we go to airports and the government has it's greedy hand in every aspect of our lives.

They need to just stop doing anything. Had the government not tried to have a home for everybody and not repealed glass-steagall and Barney Franks boyfriend had not worked at Fannie mae, it would be alot nicer now. But the incompetent bureacrats with no real world experience think that they need to fix everything and when they do they break everything.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Do you know what Glass Steagall was? They are trying to pass this law again. It is a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the entire financial system.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

yes i started this thread. we started there and went to roosevelt and the great depression. In most cases i think that this country will prosper and enjoy the most freedom if the government stays out of it. But as you know the founders designed a specific role for the government. the government is mostly bad but not all bad. they need to redo glass-steagall and stop doing everything else they are doing because they're bankrupting the country.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I don't think that we are doing the things that were done under the New Deal at all. There has been no bankruptcy reorganization of the financial system and no major investment in the development of infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

Lehman, AIG, washington mutual countywide all went bankrupt and reorganized. The government is trying to do too much again. They tried to put everyone in a home that's nice but it doesn't work.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

Good news for the G-S Act suppoters, today Occupy Marines, LA, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Occupy World News, We The 99%, Occupy Unveiled, and Power 2 The Peaceful all rewitted this to 43,143 folllowers: One for the Glass-Steagall Act Believers: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-day-the-gramm-leach-bliley-act-of-1999-came-up/ Cheers! Let's see what happens next...

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

From your line of reasoning, I would guess you are speaking from the perspective of Austrian economics, which I believe was created to maintain the power of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

But regarding prices, what I have heard is that it is important that prices be "fair". That is, prices are high enough so that the worker's basic needs can be taken care of, such as food, clothing, etc., but also, and especially pay for education, so the workers children can improve themselves, become scientists or engineers, whose knowledge and abilities will raise society to a higher level economically.

Prices need to be kept at a level that will allow this upward spiraling effect, rather than the downward spiral that we are now in. The government takes the lead in this process by providing credit to create good paying jobs that also improve the economy. The government is supposed to do this because the constitution says that the government should promote the common good, and economic development is the greatest of the common goods.

I'm sorry that I'm not addressing your questions point by point, but this is how I understand these issues.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

You believe Austrian Economics was created to maintain the power of the Austro-Hungarian empire, seriously? I mean try actually learning something about a subject before you say random things for which you have no evidence. Learn some actual economics. The government providing credit is not the way to keep prices stable.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Its was just something I hear, if you can tell me more, I'm glad to hear it.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Learn to google. Learn to wikipedia. This is not primary school and I'm not your teacher.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

OK austrian economics is discredited. I don't care who said it if it is true.

You give a cause and effect with no evidence. I don't believe those effects will happen as you say and I provided an example of human nature which i think you have to agree that we behave that way unless we are suicidal.

We are experiencing the UPWARD SPIRAL of inflation right now and we are doing nearly the same stupid thing that was done during the great depression(government intervention).

you can take "promote the general welfare" all the way to communism and the founders definitely need not mean that.

You should ask larouche people to explain this and don't let them change the subject from what actually happens to the average human when price controls are implemented. If it's not worth the price people don't buy. Try to create all the demand you want they still won't buy.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I think what you are asking is how can you make money by spending money.

In this case, the money that is spent improves the economy. With electricity people can do more work easier for example, one man can do the jobs of 100 men.

With improved transportation, business men can travel around, do more deals, make more profit, increase tax revenue, paying off the credit that was issued for economic development.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

OK those are good points and I can see that the government getting involved at times may do some good. But let me ask you this: does propping up prices eliminate buyers? For example: I can't afford a $40k car. So I will be a pedestrian if that is my only option. If that price were allowed to fall to $10k then I could buy it and travel, make more deals and buy gas/pay taxes, putting money back into the economy.

Additionally, if i am unemployed and my neighbor has a small business and the ability to pay me only $10 per day but the government has a minimum wage of $20 per day - and FDR just came and stole my neighbors gold so he's worried about getting caught paying me under the table, so he doesn't hire me and I earn $0 per day rather than $10. If I could have gotten that job and the government didn't do the same thing to my other neighbor who is a farmer, then I could afford one of his pigs. But FDR killed the pigs.

It makes sense to me that it doesn't matter how low or how high the price is as long as it is across the board. But if the government props up one area of the economy then every other area is now poorer. Tell me where I am wrong.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Sure it did, it provided jobs for millions of people and raised wages. You know how people keep saying OWS doesn't have a specific program? This is the program it is lacking. It worked before and would work again.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

how? when you go to the store do you try to save money? if there were 2 items of equal quality but different price, would you buy the more expensive one? If you can not afford Nieman-Marcus items do you buy them any way? If you know that your business will make a profit with 10 employees and you will lose money with 15 do you hire 15 and bankrupt yourself?

This is human nature and I don't think it was any different in the 30's. Please tell me HOW this analysis is wrong not just that it is wrong.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

It brought electricity to wide area around Tennessee, gave productive jobs to 3 million young men in road building, forestry and flood control, revived industry by raising wages, and reducing work hours, gave workers the right to collective bargaining, provided pensions to the aged, benefit payments to dependent mothers, crippled children and blind people, and unemployment insurance, refinanced mortgages of middle-income home owners to help people keep their houses, built and repaired schools, hospitals and airfields, among other things as well.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

does any of that really matter if you can't afford to buy food?

those programs provided some jobs for some people, kind of like the fascist deals we have today, but many people were starving while the government destroyed food and prevented unskilled workers from getting a job that wasn't a union job.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Larouche is not into communism at all, he is a patriotic American. He wants an economic recovery similar to what Roosevelt did, the New Deal.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I would argue that the new deal made the great depression worse and extended it. plus we can't spend money on larouche style programs now because we are bankrupt.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

I think it's more than just salesmanship. They cultivate a passion for their ideas.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

yeah some of the things they say are pretty cool and make sense. Overall i think larouche, if he ever got a chance, would turn this country to communism, and that's not cool to me.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 9 years ago

Glass-Steagall repeal was a mistake, according to Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich, big back pedal there.

Greenspan admits it was a mistake to presume banks and corporations would regulate themselves.

Things change, make enough noise and they change faster.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

I think this sums it up well:

"Byron's Crystal Ball" (or how he likes to put it: "Common Sense.") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg&NR=1

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

When you use guys like Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich for support instead of posting actual data, that's an indication that you don't know what's going on. The banks and corporations didn't get to regulate themselves, Bush put in more regulations than any other president since FDR. If you put your effort towards repealing Glass-Steagall you will only take away power from some of the 1% and give it to others in the 1%. Don't fall for it.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 9 years ago

I posted this to demonstrate that back pedaling is common on the hill, especially when someone wants to be a candidate and possibly elected.

Betting we'll be seeing more of this kind of back pedaling in the coming weeks.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

Ok, so what? So people in power are now backpeddling, how does that affect the validity of your proposed course of action? We are not debating what the establishment will allow, but what is actually advisable for the good of, well whoever it is we're trying to benefit, it's not really clear.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 9 years ago

If you actually read the post, both Gingrich and Paul Ryan said it was a mistake to repeal it, which had already been done, thus the back pedal.
Greenspan agreed it was a mistake to expect the banks to be self regulating, highlighting the need for Glass-Steagall to be reinstated.

There was nothing in the posting about repealing any act, but rather reinstating one that had previously been repealed.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 9 years ago

I read the post, what you're doing is still relying on statements by interested parties in the establishment. They're not reliable. Take the statement that it was "a mistake to expect the banks to be self-regulating", nobody did. The banks had literally hundreds of regulations that applied to them. One of these was of course that they had to have deposit insurance with FDIC. This is arguably the most important and most destructive regulation.

Let me put it another way, since none of these guys have said they should repeal the Federal Reserve Act does that mean we shouldn't?

Oh and reinstating G-S is effectively repealing GLB.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

Lyndon Larouche - this is a joke - isnt it ?
What institution are you in?
Any SANE reference to an Obama Glass Steagall veto?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Attacking the man is a logical fallacy as ancient as Socrates. But you still haven't learned that.

Why not try discussing the issues instead of stooping to name calling?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

I agree - name calling is not appropriate
I was not calling him a name -
Citing him as a reference is a joke.
Afraid to answer the simple question
"Obama says that he would veto Glass Steagall if it were passed to him."
Any "other" source for this ?

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 9 years ago

Not afraid to answer, I heard it from Larouche. Don't have another source, but my experience is that he doesn't usually bs around about that sort of thing. I think you could find out for yourself just by contacting Obama's campaign. He was financed to the hilt by Wall Street, why would he support Glass Steagall?

Larouche essentially believes in the policies of people like Roosevelt and JFK, so you must think that they are jokes as well.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

IMO FDR and W Bush are the worst presidents we've ever had. Obama's right there too.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 9 years ago

Absolutely.