Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: White House tries to kill Glass Steagall

Posted 2 years ago on March 9, 2012, 11:17 a.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

After more than 23,000 Americans signed a petition on the White House website, calling for the reinstating of the Glass-Steagall standard of separation between commercial and investment banking, the White House — in the name of Brian Deese, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council — sent out a letter to all the signers, purportedly explaining its opposition. Such action is compliant with their rules, that once a petition gets a certain number of signatures, it must be answered.

At the same time, however, the White House used this action to expunge the Glass-Steagall petition from the list of active ones. In other words, we say no — so forget it.

http://larouchepac.com/node/21934

Obama rejects the enactment of Glass Steagall, one the primary objectives of OWS. Shouldn't we seek his impeachment?

81 Comments

81 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The charge that the Obama administration tried to kill Glass Steagall may be true, but that charge is fatally undermined by using the Laroucheniks as a reference source. Surely there is some evidence of this that doesn't come from an authoritarian cult.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I just did a google search and had trouble finding another article on the subject. Can anyone help out on finding an alternate source? This wouldn't surprise me that they've turned it down considering his administration has yet to make a push to try and get legislation like it passed.

Congress and the White House already killed Glass-Steagall in 1999 with the Financial Modernization Act. It was a horrible bill that passed with too many votes and the then president didn't even veto. I've been asking my congressmen once a week to explain why he supported the Financial Modernization Act and how it benefited America... he has yet to answer.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

The only time it is important to consider the source, is if the idea or suggested plan can not be judged on its own merit.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall (which has been urged by many commentators) and LL's other economic plans are very straight forward and judgeable -- AND THEY WOULD WORK.

Are you saying that if you were over a cliff hanging onto that proverbial root, you'd refuse a thrown rope if you didn't like the source?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think you have been misled about Larouche by the same media which misleads people about OWS.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Actually not. I had personal dealing with LaRoache many, many decades ago, when he was a Trotskyist, and an active and leading member of the Socialist Workers Party. At the time he spent several hours trying unsuccessfully to recruit me into the SWP while relating to me his entire life story. Subsequently I watched him leave the SWP, join Students for a Democratic Society, form a rather interesting tendency in SDS called the Labor Commitee and gradually transform that faction into the paranoid conspiratorial cult that it shortly became. So I think I know enough about LaRouche and his outfit to know exactly how poisonous it has been to American culture. The only reason it has not been more poisonous is because it is so consequential. But there is not reason to lend it any more than the trivial consequence it now has by giving it any creedance whatsoever.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You're entitled to your opinion, based on your experience, but I know many other members, some who've been involved for decades, who think quite differently about Larouche's organization.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Of course. Cult members naturally have nothing but a positive attitude toward the cult they are in.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I guess you could make the same accusation against any organization.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It is true that many people treat their organizational affiliations like cults and could not imagine criticizing them, but there is a difference between that and an organization that demands obedience and uniformity of thought as a condition of membership. That, I think is what defines a cult no matter what its size and why it is reasonable to characterize the LaRoucheites as a cult.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So would you say that a teacher of a physics class demands uniformity of thought when he fails a student who doesn't answer a question on a test correctly? Would you say that such a teacher is leading a cult?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

There is a world of difference between a hard science in which there is a consensus among experts on matters of fact and the humanities and social sciences where there is often little consensus and many more concepts and ideas are in dispute. Even in the hard sciences there are always ideas and theories which are in genuine dispute and about which there is no consensus. I am no expert in physics but I understand, for example, that string theory is a disputed concept and clearly should be taught that way, giving students the opportunity to form their own opinions.

Many Christian churches operate essentially as cults, though some are open to dispute on many questions and many are even open to skeptics who are not 100% sure of their own faith.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

In Larouche's organization there is ongoing research, dispute and development of new ideas.

There are some insular qualities to the organization that I disapprove of, but I think it does much more good than harm.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Describe for me any current dispute within the Larouche organization or any past dispute that was resolved without an organizational split or which has remained ongoing without an organizational split.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm not that directly involved with the organization to know what goes on inside. Though I do know they conduct scientific research in which they explore different ideas.

I've had my own disputes with members in an ongoing way from a distance.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

So you don't really know of any actual disputes within the LaRouche movement that are either ongoing or which have been resolved without an organizational split. You just accept that it must be so as a matter of faith. On the other hand I know of at least half a dozen major organizational disputes within the movement historically as well as dozens of individual cases in which people were either expelled or left the movement voluntarily, not because of differences in fundamental principles but because it became personally inhospitable to them, another example of how a cult works in excluding people for the most trivial of personal reasons.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Which dictators are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Larouche regularly give briefings to diplomats from around the world. They seem to take his ideas seriously.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

That's a pretty scary thought and not something I'm especially knowledgeable about though I have heard that he's given advice to some of the most reprehensible dictators in the world.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm not directly involved with the organization, so I would not know about those things. I have heard about the splits that you mentioned, but I don't think that necessarily discredits an organization. I think it is normal for people to have differences of opinions and go their separate ways.

For me their main value is that they are considered among the best of private intelligence organizations in the world, and that they make their intelligence available to the public rather than just to elite groups.

They do a lot of lobbying for worthwhile political proposals, such as the Banks and Home Owners Protection Act as well as for Glass Steagall. Currently, I think the most important thing they are doing is pointing out the risk of triggering a nuclear WW3 through military action in Syria or Iran.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Salvation Army feeds a lot of homeless people every day. That doesn't mean that any of their religious clap trap should be taken seriously or that they don't serve ultimately reactionary purposes. The criticisms that the Cuban and Iranian regimes have of American imperialism is fundamentally correct. So what? It does not then follow that these are themselves exemplary societies. If anything these are such horrible regimes that it is hard to take the correct criticisms that they have of US foreign policy at all seriously. The same goes for the LaRoucheites as an organization.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Yes. This tells #OWS all it needs to know about Obama. Any incumbent president who takes such a stand in view of the ongoing economic crisis and the culpability of Wall Street in this mess, is no friend of Main Street Americans. He is a sellout. You should always vote out incumbents who betray your trust. Repealing Glass Steagall was a betrayal of trust and anyone in power who continues to reject its reinstatement is no friend of honest Americans. Obama is in the tank for Wall Street. Period.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

At this point, I think we need not just to vote him out, but even consider impeachment. While Glass Steagall was a important issues, it still pales beside the main issue right now, which is triggering a global nuclear war through a war on Iran.

Both Russia and China have warned that they would defend Iran if the US attacked, and Obama and almost all the Republican candidates just want to go ahead with an attack or support Israel in an attack anyway.

Representative Walter Jones comes the closest with his Resolution 107, stating:

"That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Maybe if Obama or Bush got a blowjob we'd have seen an actual impeachment.

When it comes to congress, blow jobs from an intern are much worse than war crimes. This should point out how overall the leading roles in the government are completely corrupt.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Obama should never have been elected in the first place. He rode novelty appeal and anti-Bush into the White House in 2008. He has proven to be a fraud. Congress will not impeach him now since there is a general election coming in eight months. Voting him out of office in November will be a de facto impeachment of this empty suit.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Kucinich should have been president in 2008. But the corporate run media lead the people onto Obama and Hillary, the 2 candidates that would most serve the war legacy and serve the 1% the best.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Also, there was a lot of pressure from Wall Street that Obama, rather than Hilary Clinton, be selected as the democratic candidate.

I just hope we can make it to the November elections, considering that there are powerful forces pushing for nuclear war between now and then.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The only way to win global thermonuclear war is to never start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, but some maniacs think they can hide in their bunkers, wait until its over, then come out to claim the earth when we are all dead.

They think that, because their financial system is collapsing, this is the only way they can stay on top.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

They just need to overturn every single aspect of the Financial Modernization act of 1999. That is the bill that repealed most of "Glass-Steagall" and created most of the mess we've seen over the years.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, that sounds about right.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

I think the reason why Glass Steagall has not been reinstated is because the Volker rule was written to take the place of it. There must be some provisions in the Volker rule to deal with the evil CDS contracts.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

People, instead of demanding that they reinstate Glass Steagall, why not get specific and demand that they outlaw credit default swaps, period. This so called exotic financial instrument has been instrumental in creating the fiinancial crisis we are in and continue to be in and to top it off, this is what is now toppling the countries of Greece, soon Portugal and then on to Spain.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

The thing that prevents the return of Glass Steagall is the 600 trillion credit default swap market. Glass Steagall outlawed the use of this kind of financial instrument so what do you suppose would happen to this market if glass steagall was reinstated. The big banks and international swaps market control what happens here and they have lots of money to back them up. Have to come up with a better idea to take these guys down.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think their system will come down one way or the other. Its collapsing now, and they are trying to take us down with it, so they can stay on top.

The money those people have is not really money. Its mostly fake. We just have to declare to be so, which is the function of Glass Steagall. It would be a painful operation, but not for the mass of humanity.

I don't see any alternative to getting well when one is sick than taking ones medicine.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

I agree with you that the derivatives market is starting to collapse however they are taking down european countries with them. Greece is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to them and soon they'll be moving on to take Portugal and Spain down the same road. While I agree that most of that money is worthless paper it is having some dire real world effects on the people of Greece, forcing austerity measures that are causing alot of pain, etc.

The medicine that is needed here is for our government to grow a spine and do something about the CDS market before these guys destroy the world.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Generally speaking, yes, I agree. If these problems are not solved soon, we will be going not just into a depression, but into more of a dark age. The situation is desperate for some now, and will become desperate for more and more people until its stopped.

The only thing I can hope for is that as things get worse, people will become more determined to understand what's happening and take action. Its hard to believe that so many people are still just in denial about this.

We could turn this problem around immediately, and get the world going in the right direction. But I think it just demands that certain things are done, one of which I believe is Glass Steagall, but even more important, a real recovery program like the New Deal.

We need real development and production again. We have to rebuild our infrastructure, not just to being passable, but the best that we can achieve, and we need to rebuild our manufacturing sector, to provide the products and materials we need to rebuild our infrastructure, as well as export to developing countries around the world.

The plans for doing these things all exist, but certain classes of people here have just been brainwashed into a post industrial, entertainment oriented, de-skilled society. There are too many people who believe in a fake economy with a "record breaking stock market", no jobs and people loosing their homes.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

The new derivatives regulations are in alot of ways a Glass Steagall holdover.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

I've always said that until people can't feed their families any more, that is when the real revolt will come. On a brighter note there was an article in the NY Times today about new regulations on the derivatives market being implemented by the CFTC which has been a long time coming, now that is good news. I do believe that some people in power see the insanity going on in that market and have decided they better start doing something about it before we all reach the point of no return. I think this is going to make a big difference and if well enforced it will start to rein in the money that's been chasing money all over Europe and Wall St too. And if the Chinese economy is slowing too as all the news seems to say, maybe, just maybe american money will start to come home and make a difference here.

There could be a lesson here for the hyper materialism we see in this country, that is if we can't afford all the "stuff" we've been buying for so many years maybe we'll finally figure out we never needed it anyway.

Then hopefully we all will see that alot needs to be fixed, roads, bridges, etc. before they fall down. Here's to hoping for better days.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I don't think I would trust the NY Times, those kinds of publications mostly just make excuses for the powers that be. I don't think "regulation" is enough. It has to be the complete Glass Steagall, or it won't work. It has to put the insolvent Wall Street firms out of business, and get rid of all the phony money.

I would hope it would make a difference, but I expect not, following in the same pattern of all attempts at regulation so far. Its like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Once phony Wall Street financing is gone, we can return to a national bank and a credit system. Its quite different from the "monetarist" system we have now.

As far as materialism and "stuff" goes, I think we need to focus on making "stuff" once again. We need high tech stuff for our infrastructure, which China would buy as well, decreasing our trade deficit. We need to become a top-level productive country once again.

I hope for better days as well.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Well surprise surprise surprise!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

stop gambling with hose loan assets

the casino always gets it cut

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

OMG now it's LaRouche. I can't wait for LaRouche and Ron Paul to join forces....

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

A good idea, but it seems they have irreconcilable differences. Larouche favors big government projects, like the New Deal and the space program, but Ron Paul is against them.

[-] 3 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

They have one thing in common, they are nuts and have a cult following.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sometimes people say that, but they are usually not able to prove it by quoting anything "nutty" from Larouche's website. You're just believing the same kind of propaganda that is used against OWS.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

The young people of this Country should not look for leaders who are old enough to be their grandfathers. Their ideas are the reason we are here today.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Larouche's ideas were generally contrary to those that have led us to the position we are in today, such as outsourcing, etc.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Generally usually means the same....but different in my eyes.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think the example I provided should clarify the issue. Outsourcing was based on Greed which Killed American industry. Larouche was opposed to that.

[-] 2 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Anyone who associates with Willis Carto is not one who I respect or look to as a leader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Wikipedia:

The Liberty Lobby, a right-wing group, has said it was never allied with LaRouche.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Really???? And Ron Paul had no clue about his profitable race baiting Newsletters either.....

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I was just quoting from the source that you provided.

I don't think that someone's association is the main issue right now, but simply the passage of Glass Steagall.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Sources have to have some sort of reputation....

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think there are some issues that we should indeed be very concerned about, for me, discussing those issues is not fear mongering.

There are important politicians world wide who recognize the worth of Lyndon Larouche. If you don't, that's up to you. Its not my concern.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Reputations can be subjected to smear campaigns, this has been attempted against OWS for example. There may be people like Willis Carto, who show up at OWS events. Does this mean that we should blame OWS?

Considering the urgency of our current situation, potential for a complete economic collapse, plus the possibility of triggering a global nuclear war by attacking Iran, I prefer to focus on the issues.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

Oh and snake oil salesmen who make money on the first two things I mentioned earlier.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 2 years ago

That's all well and good yet you have to understand the difference between fear mongering, propaganda and the truth.

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

You vant de almonds or de cashews?


No to Global 'Gleichschaltung'

By Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Who benefits from a green world dictatorship today, in which, despite all the study's unctuous words, population potential would be reduced to not more than 2 billion people? There is only one entity in the world to which this applies: the British Empire.


Now lyndon is persuing the Queen ?!?!?!?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'll take the cashews.

Most people think of the queen as a figure head for the nation of the United Kingdom. Actually, her main role in life is as head of the financial oligarchy, previously known as the British Empire, with its headquarters in the City of London financial district and its branch office "Wall Street".

Larouche has recognized her as among the major enemies of humanity for decades. In this sense, he was the original Wall Street protestor.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Unless he has violated the law as to his powers granted to him in the Constitution, there is no basis for impeachment. Believe me, his opposition in Congress would love to find a way to get him out of there, if they could, and are always looking for a way to nail him on something.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Getting us into undeclared wars is a violation of the law, isn't it?

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Every war the US has been involved in after WWII has been an undeclared war, starting with Korea right up to today. So, by your argument, Eisenhower through Obama should have been impeached.

Don't get me wrong. I think many previous Presidents have usurped their Constitutional authority by getting the US involved in war without Congressional approval. But the powers of the Presidency are open to broad interpretation, and they have gotten away with it under the broad umbrella of "National Security" -- one of the most vague and flexible terms ever devised and used to justify all kinds of atrocities.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Shouldn't we become more serious about putting a stop to this? The reason is that the consequences now are so much greater. Syria and Iran are the potential triggers of global destruction.

We are at a point now in which we just can't let things keep going in the way they have been.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes, it should have been stopped a long time ago. But 95% of the American people are oblivious. Slightly less than that amount are asleep now, as more and more of the US citizenry is waking up to what is going on and watching their rights get flushed down the toilet.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There is a momentum with this particular resolution that is critical to advance. I hope you will contact your representatives about it.

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

Obama got OUT of Iraq
Obama dealt with Libya ( well IMHO - I'm sure you disagree )
Obama is siding with EVERY US agency - CIA NSA DSA FBI on Iran
....and has garnered support for his restraint except from
....war mongers cotton mather santorum and disgraced speaker newt
Obama is not in Syria

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Let's hope he stays out of Syria and Iran.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

I think the fact that he serves Goldman Sachs (who have reps throughout the government serving the firm's interest, not the peoples') and Wall St. organized crime is pretty serious. He could have pulled an FDR and pulled in out of control financiers, but he didn't.

Furthermore, the attack on Libya was far beyond other President's actions. Absolutely, he's impeachable.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Ever since operation Mop Up several decades ago the LaRoucheites have been the scourge of the American left, worse even than the Communist Party.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'm mostly familiar with their criticism of the green movement as being opposed to economic development, as well as their opposition to communism.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

How about their Nazi like organizational structure?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Can't say I'm familiar with that.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Sounds to me like you really don't know much at all about the LaRoucheites, their rather grim history and their equally grim organizational structure. I'd frankly suggest that YOU do a bit more research before you use that outfit in particular as a source. By no means am I suggesting that everything they say is factually incorrect. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. Given the pernicious and reprehensible nature of the organization, about which there is wide public knowledge, at least on the part of the cognizant left, the LaRoucheites are hardly a credible source for anything.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Considering that I don't know you, it would be hard to give your suggestion much credibility. Wide public acknowledgement doesn't mean much to me either, considering that both Bush and Obama were elected by the public at large.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

People vote for the Republican and Democratic Parties because they don't see much choice and for the most part they are correct. The so called third parties are marginal at best and in any event are certainly unprepared to govern.

I don't think one has to know anyone well in order to take suggestions from them seriously. We read books and articles after all and are influenced by their writers even though we don't know them at all. You certainly seem to be influenced by the LaRoucheites but by your own admission don't seem at all conversant in either the history of that movement or its organizational structure. I merely suggested that your own position would be considerably strengthened if you knew more about a movement whose positions you seem to accept without much skepticism.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I actually have read quite a bit of the criticisms of Larouche, so I do know a lot about their history, even from a critical perspective. I've read through Larouche Planet quite thoroughly.

I was originally skeptical of the movement when I first began reading about it ten years ago. But then as I watched the financial crisis unfold, as it was predicted, it gained a lot more credibility with me.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Well, Larouche wasn't the only one by any means who predicted that! I suggest reading The Nation. You will quickly become fluent in a broader perspective from the left.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I'll see if I can find it at the newsstand today.

[-] -1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Hey! If Satan Republican tries to take credit for this one, you know he is lying! This one was all me and I did it because I have forgotten more all about this, MYSELF, than all of you, collectively, will ever know.

I actually don't want to hear anymore about it lest we rattle up the FEMA trains and whisk you are to resettlement camps where you can be tested for ability to be trained as a productive and useful citizen.