Story Comments
Posted by: MonkeyBiz 10 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
75%
MonkeyBiz10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am quoting from official government documents produced by the George W. Bush White House.
Reply
The dismantling of Glass-Steagal's restrictions on mortgage backed securities in 1999 is historical fact.
Call that lying if you wish, but it only makes you look stupid, or maybe your just too lazy to do any meaningful research before you mouth off..-
-
100%
MonkeyBiz10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Clinton COULD NOT have vetoed it. The final vote was 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House. Many dems voted for it, because to get their vote, the repugs agreed to an anti red-lining clause to help increase minority home ownership. It allowed banks to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services, things previously illegal under Glass-Steagall.
Reply
So again, NO dismantling of Glass-Steagall, NO mortgage backed securities, NO mortgage backed securities, NO financial crises. Very simple.
The arguments regarding how all this mess happened, in the press and on TV, are all centered on the who, what, how and why mortgage backed securities contained sub-prime loans and unrealistic loan terms. The talking heads are screaming shame on fannie mae, freddie mac, Lehman bros, etc for buying them. Your facts and quotes and talking points may all be correct or not, but they are basically obfuscation created from the minutiae of the problem. Those are all the little trees in the forest. My point is that the forest should not have been allowed to grow in the first place.-
-
100%
MonkeyBiz10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To a dem, vetoing legislation that outlaws red-lining and supposedly will help minorities own homes is not taking the high ground.
Reply
Remember, in 1999, the economy was roaring along, we had a surplus in the treasury, and business was good. Even dems thought that a little more deregulation couldn't hurt, especially undoing "outdated" depression era regulations that were presented by Gramm and others as a hindrance to further economic expansion. To add a little icing to the cake, there was a prohibition included that furthered civil rights. I doubt that a veto even crossed Clinton's mind. -
50%
slate10 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He could still have vetoed it. The veto would (probably) have been overridden, but Clinton could have assumed the high ground. Instead, he, like most politicians, just caved in to the pressure.
Reply
He could have then gone to his bully pulpit and explained why he did so to the masses so then the masses could have used their power to make those that voted for it 'reconsider'.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
decipher
fsev41
bruhaha
DenCuddy
hefaa1
fiftynine
Wolfie2007
RRcon
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.