Skip to main content

I know on its face this sounds crazy ..... but, I'm DEAD serious!! 

It is OBSCENE that these big, major banks, whose asses WE pulled out of fire - and certain death - are not getting up off the money they have!!    They're posting all of these profits and giving out all of these big bonuses ... and people are literally losing their homes, their lives, their livelihoods - not to mention the fact that it is because of their unwillingness to lend their/our  money and restructure loans and mortgages that the economy is failing to grow at any determinable rate - and are refusing - REFUSING to lend money, even to people who can afford to pay it back!! 

This is really beginning to PISS ME OFF .... because obviously the President, the Congress or nobody else can do anything to or about them!!  Is there nobody with the authority to be able to make them do the right thing?? 

A while back, President Obama suggested that we, the people, take our money out of the big banks and start putting it into the smaller, community banks to give them more capital to work with ... which (I assume) would make them stronger (giving them "big bank" status) and make them able to offer more loans and support small businesses and homeowners in the process. 

It sounded like a damn good idea to me!!  However ... I don't think the overall "sheep" mentality of the general American population would allow for enough people, en mass, to effectively use this strategy to get our point across to these banks.  I believe that too many people would be 'distrustful' of something new and unknown to participate in a way that would make a difference.  They would rather KNOWINGLY be screwed over by their big, unscrupulous, billion-dollar-making, money-hording, fee-gouging, unethical, don't-give-a-damn-about-their-customers, capitalist-driven commercial bank ... who is laughing in our faces every quarterly-earnings period when they are pocketing the equivalent of enough money to send their children (and most of ours) to college 10 times over!! 

Now ... I don't know if that was the best the President could do, suggestion-wise, due to the fact of having a 'soft-spot' for corporate America ... or because there's just nothing else that can be done to these low-down, dirty, fat-cat assholes!  (Oops!  Excuse my language.  I meant to say "bankers"!  )  But you know what I mean!

It's just pissing me off that everybody's getting on the President's case about the economy ... and nobody is calling these banks out on the fact that THEY'RE the ones mostly holding $#!+ up!!  Their refusal to help people with their homes, help businesses (big and small) expand, so that they can do more hiring, sitting on OUR money like some freakin' King Yurtle the Turtle thinking they own every damn thing ... and being stingy, penny-pinching, money-hording ass ... I mean, bankers.  And seemingly, being unable to be stopped by anything or anyone.

It's just hard for me to believe that where there's a will ... there is NOT a way!?!? 
 
 BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

How many wealthy politicians are stockholders in banks?

How many politicians owe banks money or favors?

The way technology has changed since the 50s with the increased complexity of so many things I wonder if anyone can figure out what would happen if things were shut down.  I bet you would get unexpected chain reactions of side effects.  Not to mention scaring off foreign investors.

I am very skeptical about politicians understanding of economics.  But then I am skeptical of economists understanding of economics.  It depends on too many people believing lies.

Xum
Because banking industry lobbyists are all over congress and the senate like flies on dieu-dieu


Because there are goldman sachs, wallstreet, and banking industry executives in the current administration.


Because despite the fact that the "invisible hand" and "free market will correct itself" claptrap has been totally disproven by the near collapse of the economy in 08, those in power still pray to the god of big business, smaller government and no regulations


Because the president (and those advising him) doesn't want to pursue it any more forcefully than he has too (aka pragmatism)
The problem is the fact that these banks have been able to operate with virtually no oversight since Reagan.  

Congress needs to reinstate banking regulations that protect the consumer from being robbed and our government from being blackmailed by the banking/financial industry. If this is done, there won't be any problems, at least not to the magnitude of the banking industry being able to literally hold our government hostage until it is able to extort billions out of it, as it did with the bailouts.  

America needs to have its own federal bank, (an no, the Federal Reserve is not a government bank).  If this were so, there would ALWAYS be strong competition looming over the banking industry as well.  Without competition, the banking industry, in fact, any industry, can do whatever it wants (which is why monopolies are unconstitutional, at least are supposed to be).

Capitalism is dependent on the financial industry and a non-regulated industry is an industry operating above any system of checks and balances (the only thing that allows capitalism to work in a democracy/republic) and protect the consumer as well as the government from any abuse of power.  If this administration does not reign in the runaway banking/financial industry, their next attempt to monopolize our government will probably be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.

However, it is not only the banking industry, it is also industry in general, at least when it comes to the industries Americans have relied on to provided jobs that continue to move every American job or industry overseas.  The connections to American job loss and the banking industry is the fact that not only are companies moving American jobs out of the country, the financial/banking industry is now moving any investments (lending money to) industries in these same countries rather than investing (loaning money) to American companies.  That along with the fact that these same banks/companies are actually using American taxpayers dollars to fund write-offs, tax credits, subsidies and virtually non-existent import/export levies. The insurance industry should be lumped in with the banking industry as far as the consumer is concerned because the watered down Healthcare bill did nothing more than to give the insurance industry card blanc to charge whatever they want, and while being subsidized by the very people whose taxpayers dollars are providing subsidies to the insurance industry.

I'll say it again, at this point America has no where to go but GREEN in order to be able to create jobs and industries that will be able to by pass dependency on these industries, while America establishes its own national/federal bank, reinstate banking/financial industry and import/export regulations, repeal tax write off and industry subsidies to companies that move jobs (and loans) to overseas.  It is the only thing at this point that America can do to force these industries to play fair.

A couple of years ago, in the run-up to the so-called "mortgage crisis" and ensuing "global credit crunch" I noticed that an awful lot of media outlets were essentially using coded language to blame minorities for the entire economy nearly collapsing because "they got loans they didn't qualify for and couldn't pay back".  It both irked and intrigued me that media would be pushing this theme and americans would swallow it wholesale.  Even those outlets i'd viewed as responsible media like CNN and NPR unquestioningly pushed this BS on repeated occasions.  Since that time i've been trying to learn more about economics which i was never really all that into, and learn it from different sources.


Here's something that is very important in this whole banking/finance reform debate

Glass Steagall Act

Lobbyists and conservatives were able to convince President Clinton to sign into law a bill which in effect repealed the Glass-Steagall act, a banking reform put in place AFTER the crash in 29-30, to prevent banks from running wild and causing another crash.  As a result of Clinton, banks were able to be both banks and wallstreet at the same time leading to the financial collapse of 08


Re-instating the Glass-Steagall act is not in the new financial reform bill/law


President Obama did not insist that it be placed in there...


and one of his economic advisors has been Robert Rubin who urged Clinton to repeal Glass-Steagall by signing the Gramm Leach Bliley Act into law  

Last edited by NSpirit
From my link above:  Banking reform was necessary after the Crash of 29 because...


Provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act were directed at these abuses:

(1) Banks were investing their own assets in securities with consequent risk to commercial and savings deposits. The concern of Congress to block this evil is clearly stated in the report of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on an immediate forerunner of the Glass-Steagall Act.

(2) Unsound loans were made in order to shore up the price of securities or the financial position of companies in which a bank had invested its own assets.

(3) A commercial bank's financial interest in the ownership, price, or distribution of securities inevitably tempted bank officials to press their banking customers into investing in securities which the bank itself was under pressure to sell because of its own pecuniary stake in the transaction.



Looking at the bank bailout of 2008, do these problems sound familiar?  But oh no!  the market will correct itself

Reference:
I'll say it again, at this point America has no where to go but GREEN in order to be able to create jobs and industries that will be able to by pass dependency on these industries, while America establishes its own national/federal bank, reinstate banking/financial industry and import/export regulations, repeal tax write off and industry subsidies to companies that move jobs (and loans) to overseas. It is the only thing at this point that America can do to force these industries to play fair.

I think I read somewhere that in one of those various pieces of legislation that the President has thusfar signed the government has stopped giving the tax breaks and subsidies to American companies that do business overseas. 

But that's a pretty long (and ambitious!) list there, sunnubian!!    Will 2 outta 3 work??  'Caused you'd have to kidnap 3/4 of the Republican House and ALL of the Republican side of the Senate in order to get that kind of agenda through!!    I definitely agree with you as far as us going GREEN!!  I have a feeling that that is probably the one thing that has a chance of pulling our collective asses out of the fire at this point!!

While I do understand both the importance and the necessity of the need for bank and industry regulations - I'm no financial/economic expert by any stretch of the imagination - unless that will work to squeeze the banks into having to start putting money back into the American economy - by cutting off their access to those other potential profits .. then this country is really going to need a "Plan B"!!!  With a quickness!!

Healthy consumer spending has always been more effective in sustaining the economy than any of that "trickle down"/tax breaks for the rich BS that only serves to make the rich richer!    People (and businesses) need money in hand in order to spend, expand, and profit. The government can't afford to put the kind of money that is needed to effectively stimulate or "jump start" the economy back into a 'non-cardiac arrest' mode .. and the banks are simply not letting go of the money they have.  Money they have only because we, the taxpayers, pulled their asses out the jaws of hell allowing them to live another day to make another damn dime!! 

And all I'm saying is that if they're going to be stingy like that ... then there needs to be another way for us to get the influx of money that we need.  And if there is, we really need to utilize it ... like, immediately, if not sooner!

I understand that as consumers, we need 'protections' against unscrupulous practices ... but, the damage from those banks (and other industries) doing just that has already been done!!  There were no "protections."  And we got - and continue to be - shafted ... even long after the crime has been committed.

Unfortunately, I don't trust the President nor the majority-Democrat Congress to have the ... guts ... to do what needs to be done.  We really may be on our own ... in need of saving ourselves.  And, if that's the case,I'd really like to know what the plan for that would look like!
Reference:
Lobbyists and conservatives were able to convince President Clinton sign a law which in effect repealed the Glass-Steagall act, a banking reform put in place AFTER the crash in 29-30, to prevent banks from running wild and causing another crash. As a result of Clinton, banks were able to be both banks and wallstreet at the same time leading to the great financial collapse of 08

Actually .. that's not exactly the way that went down!    I'll try to give you the nutshell version, but what really happened is: 

With a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, redneck Conservatives drafted the bill that in essence would repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and tried to cram it down the Democrats throat.  When they couldn't get it to pass .. they sweetened the deal by offering to attach a long-sought after Democrat agenda item that would effectively stop banks, businesses, and other commercial enterprises from refusing to offer their services and stores in low-income and urban neighborhoods. (known as "redlining")

Along with a couple of other (smaller) "bones" thrown in for good measure ...both the House and Senate voted in overwhelming majorities to pass the bill.  And President Clinton signed it more for the provision that ended bank's and other entities' legal discrimination against offering their goods and services to Black people/the poor/minorities  .than he did simply to make the Repubs happy.
Ebony Reference:
Actually .. that's not exactly the way that went down! I'll try to give you the nutshell version, but what really happened is:

Since you are adopting the posture of "schooling" me in a thread where you asked WHY CANT THE BIG BANKING INDUSTRY BE SHUT DOWN?  Yes, Ebony please school us.  Could you explain point by point how what you wrote is a different and more effective explanation of what i wrote regarding Clinton signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act into law and effectively repealing Glass-Steagall?


What did I post that was not factual? 


Which source did I cite that had inaccurate information about conservatives, Robert Rubin, and Clinton's signing of Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law?



What did you post that further clarified Clinton's effective repeal of Glass-Steagall? or Clinton and Robert Rubin's responsibility in allowing regular banks to act as securities firms? which then went on to bundle risky loans and trade them as stocks?  which in turn led to the mortgage crisis?  which in turn led to the global credit crunch?


Could you post any links that you used to reach the conclusion that president Clinton's personal motivation for gutting banking laws meant to prevent another crash of 1929...was to help blacks get loans/banking services?


P.S. thanks for creating this thread.  It's a topic i've become somewhat fascinated about.
Last edited by NSpirit
Ebony Reference:
Unfortunately, I don't trust the President nor the majority-Democrat Congress to have the ... guts ... to do what needs to be done. We really may be on our own ... in need of saving ourselves. And, if that's the case,I'd really like to know what the plan for that would look like!
While i'm surprised that you'd say this, it definitely seems to be true.  Especially given the number of Goldman Sachs former executives in the current administration and outside it but still advising the administration watering down every vital effort meant to help the people.  I believe Oshun Auset used to post about the USA being an Oligarchy with corporations in power.  Those were timely statements indeed.
Reference:
Since you are adopting the posture of "schooling" me in a thread where you asked WHY CANT THE BIG BANKING INDUSTRY BE SHUT DOWN? Yes, Ebony please school us. Could you explain point by point how what you wrote is a different and more effective explanation of what i wrote regarding Clinton signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act into law and effectively repealing Glass-Steagall?


Oh good lord, NS ... there's no need to get your panties all in a twist!    I'm not trying to contradict your statement that President Clinton signed that bill into law.  It's a fact.  And I will scream that from my rooftop if it will make you feel better.

 

But it is also a statement that is generalized, ambiguous, at least partially inaccurate, and doesn't even begin to tell the true story and facts about how and why such an important bill became law.  In fact, it only tells the very end …. which is actually the least significant aspect of the totality of that situation …. and President Clinton – aside from the fact that he signed it – was by no means the major figurehead behind why that bill existed and exactly what it did. 

 

For one, a president doesn't get "lobbied to" once he takes office.  That kind of access is not granted to those kinds of people.  His decision whether or not to sign had nothing to do with arm-twisting from "lobbyists and conservatives."  In reality, his arm was twisted by his Congress – Republicans and Democrats, alike - and the bill they presented him with.  It was the Members of Congress whose arms would have been (and were) twisted by the 'lobbyists and conservatives.'  And to say that they influenced the president simply wouldn't be true.

Secondly, there was no "president Clinton's personal motivation for gutting banking laws meant to prevent another crash of 1929 …"  President Clinton had no "personal motivation" to enact that bill.  It wasn't his bill.  It wasn't his idea to create that bill.  It wasn't even his Party's idea to create that bill.  It was a Republican-majority, bank capitalist-bulldozer-tactic, to get legislation passed that would make big banks even BIGGER .. and fat cats that much more FAT!!

 

Any "result of President Clinton's" influence (through a threatened veto) on the bill is the fact that those same banks that were about to be deregulated could not discriminate against Black/poor people for loans and access, could not use and disseminate private consumer information (such as medical and insurance records) against that consumer, and is responsible for other privacy and financial safeguards that the Republicans did not want to concede.

 

My intent was not to "school" you.  But, today, more than ever, I think it's EXTREMELY important that we (as in the Black community as a whole) develop a keen understanding of just how government works ... and what to and not to blame a President for.  And what is and is not Congress' culpability.   

 

Your statement that "As a result of Clinton, banks were able to be both banks and wallstreet at the same time leading to the financial collapse of 08" may be very technically factually true, but is also an inaccurate misconception of what really took place.   No, he didn't have to sign it … but, the fact is, politics is a game of "give and take."  And what Clinton "gave away" in financial reform was counterbalanced by what he "took" in return .. which was much needed anti-discrimination, privacy and equal access protections that was for the benefit of Black and poor people.

 

Now whether or not it was worth it would be a different debate, indeed.  But I think we should put the real responsibility of that bill where it belongs … and recognize and understand it for what it really is.

Reference:
Your statement that "As a result of Clinton, banks were able to be both banks and wallstreet at the same time leading to the financial collapse of 08" may be very technically factually true, but is also an inaccurate misconception of what really took place. No, he didn't have to sign it … but, the fact is, politics is a game of "give and take." And what Clinton "gave away" in financial reform was counterbalanced by what he "took" in return .. which was much needed anti-discrimination, privacy and equal access protections that was for the benefit of Black and poor people.
If it is technically true then there is no inaccurate misconception.  The title of the thread asks about why the banking industry cant be shut down - it does not ask tangential questions about how a bill becomes law.  To say the clinton administration effectively repealed a 70 year old consumer protection law is factually correct so to try to act like it was incorrect with this statement:


Actually .. that's not exactly the way that went down! I'll try to give you the nutshell version, but what really happened is:
is simply unnecessary drama and smokescreen.
Reference:
For one, a president doesn't get "lobbied to" once he takes office. That kind of access is not granted to those kinds of people. His decision whether or not to sign had nothing to do with arm-twisting from "lobbyists and conservatives." In reality, his arm was twisted by his Congress – Republicans and Democrats, alike - and the bill they presented him with. It was the Members of Congress whose arms would have been (and were) twisted by the 'lobbyists and conservatives.' And to say that they influenced the president simply wouldn't be true.
LOL, ARE YOU NUTS?

The president is heavily influenced by the economic players in his administration, most of whom have been banking executives, particularly from Goldman Sachs in the last couple of decades.  Robert E. Rubin, then secty of the treasury in the clinton administration (the position tim geithner currently occupies)recommended "reforming" glass steagall to congress in 1995 before the bill was ever written and then finally passed in 1999.  Clinton's economic advisers including Rubin had already influenced him.  Fine, if you want to get your panties in a bunch over the word "lobbying"....I'm not sure what else you would call former banking executives influencing the president to sign legislation that is favorable to the banking industry *shrug*


http://www.allbusiness.com/gov...ations/500983-1.html

1995- Robert E. Rubin, secretary of the Treasury, recommended that Congress pass legislation to reform or repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to modernize the country's financial system. In testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Rubin said Clinton administration proposals would permit affiliations between banks and other financial services companies, such as securities firms and insurance companies. However, the secretary emphasized that the Clinton administration did not endorse affiliations between banks and industrial companies.



http://blogs.alternet.org/spea...litz-is-still-right/
Rubin is the Democratic Party’s Alan Greenspan. In the 1990s, he was heralded as a genius for making policy calls that ultimately wrecked the economy. Rubin pushed for deficit reduction instead of a jobs policy in the Clinton years, and was the driving force in the Clinton administration’s devastating moves to deregulate Wall Street. For several years, Rubin’s policies looked good. Despite the focus on the deficit instead of jobs, the Clinton years saw a huge boom in employment. Wall Street profits were through the roof, and the economy was roaring.

But at the end of Clinton’s second term, it was clear that all of these good times had been fueled not by sound economic policy, but by a reckless and unsustainable Wall Street bubble.



http://economix.blogs.nytimes....oken-glass-steagall/

Bill Clinton's statement upon signing the bill in1999: I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves…today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...rong-to-take-it.html 
In my EXCLUSIVE “This Week” interview, I asked former President Bill Clinton if he thought he got bad advice on regulating complex financial instruments known as derivatives from his former Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.  He acknowledged that he was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating derivatives.   

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

 

Last edited by NSpirit
You know, NS ....

As usual .... you've managed to make me sorry I ever engaged you in this conversation. 

And, as usual, I will try (once more) not to let it happen again.

Nothing in all your research and writings above takes away from the fact that you have a limited understanding of what it is you're trying to talk about.  And you obviously don't want to understand any more about it than you do right now.

Your only concern seems to be that President Clinton signed the bill.  And if that's all it takes to fill your knowledge base to capacity ... then so be it.  I don't see where anything more needs to be said.  
Last edited by EbonyRose
Reference:
Nothing in all your research and writings above takes away from the fact that you have a limited understanding of what it is you're trying to talk about. And you obviously don't want to understand any more about it than you do right now.
Ebony, how would you know what i understand about what i'm saying when you clearly don't know what i'm talking about, haven't asked me what i'm talking about and are unable to grasp the difference between a discussion about how a bill becomes a law and how the banking industry has screwed the american people.  You don't know about... and thus it's foolish for you to open your mouth about... what i understand and don't understand.  


You haven't made one statement, not one about the mortgage crisis connection to the banking industry, glass-steagall, gramm-leach-bliley, the bailouts, securitization of subprime mortgages, goldman sachs executives, or clinton, bush II, and obama role in all of this.  Zip!  Zilch! Nada! 


Yet your first effort to "engage" me in this thread was ego-tripping:



Actually .. that's not exactly the way that went down!    I'll try to give you the nutshell version, but what really happened is: 


On top of that you have not provided one link, post, or halfway valid assertion which contradicts any of what i've posted and which you yourself have acknowledged as factually correct.   That makes your claim BS or drama or dramatic BS.


It's wise to actually have some opposing facts when you try to oppose something.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×