Ex-Citigroup chief says removing Glass-Steagal was wrong s

[cancel2 2022]

Who says miracles never happen? It's a pity though that he didn't have this clarity of vision before championing the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90's.

(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/10/ex-citigroup-chief-youre-right-that-was-dumb.aspx)Ex-Citigroup Chief: You're Right, That Was Dumb

By Morgan Housel
November 10, 2009 (Source (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/10/ex-citigroup-chief-youre-right-that-was-dumb.aspx))


(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/10/ex-citigroup-chief-youre-right-that-was-dumb.aspx#commentsBoxAnchor)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/usmf.inv.investing/articles;pos=2;seg=71;src=;sz=140x35;ptile=0;ord=7 8276822;sub=default;port=71;trades=68;reg=true;uid =68709246;ticker=default? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/usmf.inv.investing/articles;pos=2;seg=71;src=;sz=140x35;ptile=0;ord=7 8276822;sub=default;port=71;trades=68;reg=true;uid =68709246;ticker=default?) We love mea culpas, perhaps because we don't get enough of them these days. When something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault. Housing bubble? Blame the Fed. Loose lending? Blame investor demand. Bad regulation? Blame Barney Frank. Demise of Lehman Brothers? Blame the short sellers. Economy crashed? Blame Greenspan. Greenspan's messed up? Blame Friedman. Blame Rand. Blame Balloon Boy. Blame. Blame. Blame.
That's why I'd like to send a big, warm thank-you to Citigroup's (NYSE: C (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/C.aspx)) former CEO and architect, John Reed. After championing the push to repeal Glass-Steagall (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/10/29/the-daily-walk-of-shame-the-white-house.aspx) in the late '90s, enabling Citigroup to become what it is today, Reed recently told Bloomberg:
I'm sorry ... We learn from our mistakes ... When you're running a company, you do what you think is right for the stockholders. Right now I'm looking at this as a citizen.
I would compartmentalize the industry for the same reason you compartmentalize ships. If you have a leak, the leak doesn't spread and sink the whole vessel. So generally speaking you'd have consumer banking separate from trading bonds and equity.
Strong words from a man who pushed and pried for the exact opposite one decade ago. Back then, he and others apparently believed that if we welded together everything with a dollar sign in front of it, we'd be ushered into a banking nirvana full of puppies, kittens, and rainbows. Yeah, not so much.
Let's not understate what Reed's advocating here: Some form of Glass-Steagall should be reinstated, and megabanks should be broken apart. That means you, Citigroup, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/BAC.aspx)), JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/JPM.aspx)), Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/WFC.aspx)), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/GS.aspx)), and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS (http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/MS.aspx)). The latter two are already commercial banks by default, after being granted emergency status (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/09/11/lehman-brothers-and-the-age-of-stupidity.aspx) last fall. These monster banks all have fundamental flaws. And they need to end.
Why is retired Reed coming clean while so many other industry heavyweights still cling to the good ol' days? That question answers itself. Reed doesn't hold a high-level position at any major bank anymore. His livelihood isn't as vested in the industry's profits as those who still argue that megabanks are a good thing. He knows the situation better than almost anyone else, yet he's in a position to tell it like it is. That's the kind of guy you want to listen to.
Reed's comments are one of the strongest signals yet that major bank reform is not only necessary, but gaining support. Later this week, my colleague Ilan Moscovitz and I will publish a detailed rundown showing why we believe there's absolutely no excuse not to break up the biggest banks. Stay tuned.
http://g.fool.com/Tracking/VS/vs_track.gif?v=61258?Log=1&logicView=LogicViewEcap&logicViewCellId=LogicViewCellRegisteredNoProducts&rand=78276822&selectedCriteria=AlwaysTrueRenderCriteria&uid=68709246


(http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/11/10/ex-citigroup-chief-youre-right-that-was-dumb.aspx)

[Mott the Hoople]

8 hours later not a peep from the far right calling you a communist. Did they forget to take their geritol?

[DigitalDave]

Mott, I don't think you'll find many conservatives here that agree with Glass-Steagal. It was repealed during the Clinton administration, so if conservatives show up, most likely they'll be blasting liberals for allowing this crap to happen. Then again, when they had total control, they didn't do shit about it either.

Re-instating Glass-Steagal only makes perfect sense, so can the Dem's put it back into place, pretty please? Or will Jamie Dimon whisper in Obama's ear that it's a bad idea?

[cancel2 2022]

8 hours later not a peep from the far right calling you a communist. Did they forget to take their geritol?

I very much doubt that you will get much from them, Fox News hasn't given them their talking points yet, they are still stuck on ACORN, Fannie Mae etc.

Here are a few quotes about Phil Gramm the real villain of the piece.

"The most dangerous place in Washington is between Phil Gramm and a camera" -- something reporters say.


"He's always willing to rise above principle. He's got every quality of a dog except loyalty." -- Dave McNeely, political columnist for the Austin, Texas American-Statesman


"You can love him or hate him, but when you're dealing with him, there are 2 things you've got to remember: #1, he's smarter than you are. #2, he's meaner than a junkyard dog." -- Marvin Leath, former Gramm colleague


"Voters vote for people they like. Now Phil, I know his mother likes him. I know Wendy likes him. I think his dog likes him. And I like him. I've named four." -- Buddy Roemer

[cawacko]

8 hours later not a peep from the far right calling you a communist. Did they forget to take their geritol?

Considering that Clinton signed the laws repeal why should it only be the 'far right' that should be upset here?

If you remember it was Treasury Secetray Robert Rubin (who many credited with '90's economic boom) who heavily lobbied Clinton behind the scenes to sign the bill. It was then Citi CEO Sandy Weil whose dream was this one stop bank, a mega-financial conglomerate. Glass-Stegal was in the way. Once it was abolished Weill was able to go ahead. He then gave Rubin a seat on the board and chairman of the firm's 'executive committee' and Rubin quite possibly had one of the best jobs on Wall St.

As we all know this one stop banking didn't quite work out for Citi as they couldn't get all their different groups to communicate and cross sell. As Digital Dave mentioned they also canned Jamie Dimon which was a huge mistake. So in spite of the law change Citi has been a huge POS. So not surprising their new CEO might issue a mea culpa.

So back to the politics this was pretty much a true bi-partisan disaster. And as far as this board goes I've seen Superfreak argue this never should have been repealed and never heard anyone else argue that it should not have.

[DigitalDave]

Considering that Clinton signed the laws repeal why should it only be the 'far right' that should be upset here?

If you remember it was Treasury Secetray Robert Rubin (who many credited with '90's economic boom) who heavily lobbied Clinton behind the scenes to sign the bill. It was then Citi CEO Sandy Weil whose dream was this one stop bank, a mega-financial conglomerate. Glass-Stegal was in the way. Once it was abolished Weill was able to go ahead. He then gave Rubin a seat on the board and chairman of the firm's 'executive committee' and Rubin quite possibly had one of the best jobs on Wall St.

As we all know this one stop banking didn't quite work out for Citi as they couldn't get all their different groups to communicate and cross sell. As Digital Dave mentioned they also canned Jamie Dimon which was a huge mistake. So in spite of the law change Citi has been a huge POS. So not surprising their new CEO might issue a mea culpa.

So back to the politics this was pretty much a true bi-partisan disaster. And as far as this board goes I've seen Superfreak argue this never should have been repealed and never heard anyone else argue that it should not have.

Even though they canned him cawacko, Jamie Dimon took away from that experience that in order to get what you want, you use the government to get it for you. He used this ruling for his own benefit too, but the problem is, he's good buds with Obama. There is even talk that he might take Geitner's position. It's pretty sick. But people who don't really know him, but have heard his name and know he "saved" other banks have a lot to learn. He didn't save these banks, he used the government and, since they repealed Glass-Steagel, he went after investment banks. He also used rating agencies to run these banks even further into the ground. Once they got near the bottom, he gobbled them up. Washington Mutual, a savings and loan bank, was a rush job. They used the FDIC, SEC, and OTS to steal that bank. SEC refused to put Washington Mutual on the short sell ban list, making it a target for shorting, then the OTS issued the Tier 1 capital rating for WaMu, which pissed off Sheila Bair at the FDIC because they wanted WaMu killed. So they colluded, created a run on the bank, which only included insiders to their little scheme, then tryed again. Once the FDIC caught word that WaMu STILL had enough capital, but it was floating between different subsidiaries of WMI, they seized them before they could get that money to the bank. They did it on a Thursday, and $17 Billion was sitting in WMBfsb, as extra capital. FDIC knew this, so they had to act quickly, and seized on a Thursday. Guess who won the bid with only 1 hour of bidding? JPMorgan! Jamie Dimon is now a hero!

Anyways, the point im trying to make is Jamie Dimon was trained by these assholes at Citi, and they knew how to work the system. By letting Jamie Dimon go, they just created a monster.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Mott, I don't think you'll find many conservatives here that agree with Glass-Steagal. It was repealed during the Clinton administration, so if conservatives show up, most likely they'll be blasting liberals for allowing this crap to happen. Then again, when they had total control, they didn't do shit about it either.

Re-instating Glass-Steagal only makes perfect sense, so can the Dem's put it back into place, pretty please? Or will Jamie Dimon whisper in Obama's ear that it's a bad idea?

I disagree. I am fiscally conservative and believe Glass Steagall was (and is) absolutely necessary.

The same for the uptick rule.

The ones who are fighting both being put back in place are the ones who benefit from their absence. (ie... Jaime Dimon as you mentioned)

[Cancel 2016.2]

8 hours later not a peep from the far right calling you a communist. Did they forget to take their geritol?

funny how you can make snide comments like the above, especially given your avoidance of the global warming thread.

Yours was the second comment on this thread. It is possible that people simply did not see the thread when he originally posted it. Given that most people were busy mocking ditzie on his newest attempt at a 1/3 thread, this is very possible.

[DigitalDave]

I disagree. I am fiscally conservative and believe Glass Steagall was (and is) absolutely necessary.

The same for the uptick rule.

The ones who are fighting both being put back in place are the ones who benefit from their absence. (ie... Jaime Dimon as you mentioned)

I meant agree with Glass-Steagal being repealed. sorry for that.

[Cancel 2016.2]

I meant agree with Glass-Steagal being repealed. sorry for that.

ahh... no worries then...

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Considering that Clinton signed the laws repeal why should it only be the 'far right' that should be upset here?

.

exactly...kind of funny how mott seemingly won't blame clinton if repubs are in power in the house/senate, yet will blame bush despite the dems being in power

[Mott the Hoople]

exactly...kind of funny how mott seemingly won't blame clinton if repubs are in power in the house/senate, yet will blame bush despite the dems being in power
Actually I do. I do blame Clinton for repealing Glass Steagal and I also blame him for signing NAFTA in the form in which he signed it. Perot was right about the sucking sound. I have many regrets about Clinton. Those include not voting for him.

On the whole, Clinton was an above average president on policy and below average in character. He certainly wasn't the bumbling fuck up Bush was but then again, I never voted for Bush either.

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, I don't think you'll find many conservatives here that agree with Glass-Steagal. It was repealed during the Clinton administration, so if conservatives show up, most likely they'll be blasting liberals for allowing this crap to happen. Then again, when they had total control, they didn't do shit about it either.

Re-instating Glass-Steagal only makes perfect sense, so can the Dem's put it back into place, pretty please? Or will Jamie Dimon whisper in Obama's ear that it's a bad idea?
Actually my intent there was to make fun of the rights knee jerk reaction opposing just about any form of regulation. You are correct. Clinton f'd up in repealing Glass Steagel.

[DigitalDave]

Actually my intent there was to make fun of the rights knee jerk reaction opposing just about any form of regulation. You are correct. Clinton f'd up in repealing Glass Steagel.

Well, if you listen to the one guy who is probably the biggest opponent to government regulation in congress, Ron Paul, he doesn't call this regulation, he calls Glass-Steagal common sense. You don't allow investment banks and savings banks join forces or be one in the same. Savings are meant to be safe, but they aren't in the hands of investment banks.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Actually I do. I do blame Clinton for repealing Glass Steagal and I also blame him for signing NAFTA in the form in which he signed it. Perot was right about the sucking sound. I have many regrets about Clinton. Those include not voting for him.

On the whole, Clinton was an above average president on policy and below average in character. He certainly wasn't the bumbling fuck up Bush was but then again, I never voted for Bush either.

good points, bush is not as bad as many on the left portray, but he certaintly had his screw ups

[DigitalDave]

BTW, i started a blog on here about the WaMu fiasco, if you are interested in reading:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/blog.php?u=33

near the end i got in a hurry due to time, so I didn't go into as much detail on the JPM case as i did the FDIC case, but I'll summarize that too, maybe this weekend.

[evince]

Clinton should not have signed it and Phil Gramm and the Rs who wrote and fought for GS repeal for years still get the majority of blame.

Then there is the blame that an entirely R government has for NOT reacting to the obvious problems it was creating while they kept getting reelected.

[cawacko]

Clinton should not have signed it and Phil Gramm and the Rs who wrote and fought for GS repeal for years still get the majority of blame.

Then there is the blame that an entirely R government has for NOT reacting to the obvious problems it was creating while they kept getting reelected.

What about Robert Rubin's role? And what has the Democratic Controlled congress done in the past three years when the problems truly came to light?

[evince]

They tried to stem it but it had already taken its toll and the remaining Rs did not cooperate.

Lets remember what happened to Spitzer when he tried to stem the tide in NY state.

[cawacko]

They tried to stem it but it had already taken its toll and the remaining Rs did not cooperate.

Lets remember what happened to Spitzer when he tried to stem the tide in NY state.

What exactly did they do to try and stem it? And since they don't need a Republican vote to put it back into place what are the Democrats doing?

And what's Elliot Spitzer have to do with this? Like Spitzer claiming charges against Hank Greenberg and AIG has anything to do with Glass-Stegal?

And no comment on Bob Rubin?

[evince]

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/predatory-lenders-partner-in-crime-by-former-ny-gov-eliot-spitzer/

[cawacko]

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/predatory-lenders-partner-in-crime-by-former-ny-gov-eliot-spitzer/

Ok, so something written by Spitzer. You'll have to excuse me for taking with a grain of salt something written by a politician.

Spitizer was also never in Congress so not sure what he has to do with why the Democrats aren't putting Glass-Stegal back in place since they don't need a Republican vote to do so.

And still no opinion on Bob Rubin?

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, if you listen to the one guy who is probably the biggest opponent to government regulation in congress, Ron Paul, he doesn't call this regulation, he calls Glass-Steagal common sense. You don't allow investment banks and savings banks join forces or be one in the same. Savings are meant to be safe, but they aren't in the hands of investment banks.I couldn't agree more.

[Mott the Hoople]

good points, bush is not as bad as many on the left portray, but he certaintly had his screw upsNo he certainly isn't but my problem with Bush was that I was afraid that the job would be beyond his abilities and he did exceed my worst fears. Bush/Gore had to be the worst slate of candidates since....well...since Bush/Dukakis. LOL

[DigitalDave]

Clinton should not have signed it and Phil Gramm and the Rs who wrote and fought for GS repeal for years still get the majority of blame.

Then there is the blame that an entirely R government has for NOT reacting to the obvious problems it was creating while they kept getting reelected.

No, the entire government should be blamed, from the Republicans alowing it to make it through congress to Clinton, to the Republican controlled government, to the current government for not doing anything about it either. Jamie Dimon is in the pocket of the Dem's right now, so are they going to do the right thing or are we going to have to wait even longer,hmmm?

Or, are they going to give Dimon a seat in the treasury. We will see.

[cawacko]

What about Robert Rubin's role? And what has the Democratic Controlled congress done in the past three years when the problems truly came to light?

Desh, since you are posting this morning any more thoughts on why the Democrats haven't attempted to put back Glass Stegal during the last three years they've led Congress or the past year while they've also held the Presidency?

[DigitalDave]

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2008/prg102108.pdf

Here is just more evidence that certain big banks are using the government to get what they want. Here is an excerpt:


The enforcement director gave information to the (General Counsel) of JP Morgan Chase (himself a former SEC enforcement director) about the state of various
investigations into Bear. The GC had called the director to get assurances and inside
knowledge from the SEC to help Morgan’s negotiating position (i.e. how much to bid).
This inside information, gotten through a personal relationship, would be critical in
helping Morgan put together a low-ball bid to Bear and the US government: Morgan
could cite litigation (as Ill as valuation) uncertainties, while having the assurance (that at
least from the SEC) the risk of litigation was not really that great. This could have
materially affected the amount of guarantees that Morgan was able to negotiate from the Federal Reserve.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually I do. I do blame Clinton for repealing Glass Steagal and I also blame him for signing NAFTA in the form in which he signed it. Perot was right about the sucking sound. I have many regrets about Clinton. Those include not voting for him.

On the whole, Clinton was an above average president on policy and below average in character. He certainly wasn't the bumbling fuck up Bush was but then again, I never voted for Bush either.

I disagree on the NAFTA assessment, but otherwise agree with the above.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Clinton should not have signed it and Phil Gramm and the Rs who wrote and fought for GS repeal for years still get the majority of blame.

Then there is the blame that an entirely R government has for NOT reacting to the obvious problems it was creating while they kept getting reelected.

What have the Dems done since they have been in power to put Glass Steagal back in place?

[NOVA]

8 hours later not a peep from the far right calling you a communist. Did they forget to take their geritol?

Well, its water under the bridge so to speak....but here goes...
just for your information.....

In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence."

So, obviously, President Clinton views it quite differently....

also

The economists Brad DeLong (of the University of California, Berkeley) and Tyler Cowen (of George Mason University in Virginia) have both argued that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[32] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[33] An article in National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act “folk economics”

Two the most liberal leaning universities in the country.....
------------
And further FYI

75% of House D's voted YES and 84% of Senate D's voted YES....

So why would you imagine conservatives would call out TommyBoy....
he entitled to his opinions, right or wrong...no doubt he's be sucking up to anybody that agreed with his distorted views....

[cawacko]

What have the Dems done since they have been in power to put Glass Steagal back in place?

Wow, something she actually doesn't have an answer for.

[Cancel 2016.2]

They tried to stem it but it had already taken its toll and the remaining Rs did not cooperate.

Lets remember what happened to Spitzer when he tried to stem the tide in NY state.

um... he got hookers???

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wow, something she actually doesn't have an answer for.

Hush now... she just doesn't have the proper talking point yet. She has petitioned moveon.moron to have one provided quite promptly.

[DigitalDave]

I think she texted 542542 and asked. Pretty soon we will see how that service is Republican run and biased.

[cawacko]

I think she texted 542542 and asked. Pretty soon we will see how that service is Republican run and biased.

LOL!!! I just saw one of their ads on TV this morning.

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL!!! I just saw one of their ads on TV this morning.

who is it for?

[cawacko]

who is it for?

some company called kgb.com? Never heard of them. Supposedly you text them a question and then they answer you. The ads never really mention it costs like $1.00 to do it...

[evince]

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1779&Q=284470

January 8, 2004

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today attacked the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for issuing new regulations that preclude states from enforcing laws against unfair and predatory lending practices against national banks. OCC took the action over the objections of attorneys general from all 50 states.

[cawacko]

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1779&Q=284470

January 8, 2004

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today attacked the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for issuing new regulations that preclude states from enforcing laws against unfair and predatory lending practices against national banks. OCC took the action over the objections of attorneys general from all 50 states.

what's this in response to? this is nothing. This answers absolutely nothing about what the Democrats have done since regaining power to reinstate Glass-Stegal. You won't answer that because you know there is no answer.

[DigitalDave]

some company called kgb.com? Never heard of them. Supposedly you text them a question and then they answer you. The ads never really mention it costs like $1.00 to do it...

Yeah, and with Desh's last reply, you also see you don't get very much of what you pay for.

[Mott the Hoople]

um... he got hookers???
True but what I admired about Spitzer was he got the hookers at a discounted rate. Have you ever gotten a discount from a hooker??

[DigitalDave]

True but what I admired about Spitzer was he got the hookers at a discounted rate. Have you ever gotten a discount from a hooker??

Better yet, have you ever heard of a politician looking for a discount for anything the taxpayers paid for?

[Mott the Hoople]

Better yet, have you ever heard of a politician looking for a discount for anything the taxpayers paid for?So you mean Spitzer killed two birds with one stone? Damn! That is impressive.

[cawacko]

Yeah, and with Desh's last reply, you also see you don't get very much of what you pay for.

LMAO... so true.

Come on Desh that was a poor hit n' run posting effort.

[Cancel 2016.2]

True but what I admired about Spitzer was he got the hookers at a discounted rate. Have you ever gotten a discount from a hooker??

No, fortunately some of us have no need to PAY to have sex.

[Cancel 2016.2]

LMAO... so true.

Come on Desh that was a poor hit n' run posting effort.

what did you expect? She knows that she has nothing. There is NO excuse for them to not have done something. They have controlled Congress for 3 years and there hasn't been one attempt that I am aware of to bring back Glass Steagall. They have had super majority and a Dem President for 10 months now... and NOTHING.

This creates quite the pickle for poor Desh.

[Mott the Hoople]

what did you expect? She knows that she has nothing. There is NO excuse for them to not have done something. They have controlled Congress for 3 years and there hasn't been one attempt that I am aware of to bring back Glass Steagall. They have had super majority and a Dem President for 10 months now... and NOTHING.

This creates quite the pickle for poor Desh.It also goes to show you the degree to wich our congress is owned by corporate interest.

[Cancel 2016.2]

It also goes to show you the degree to wich our congress is owned by corporate interest.

I would imagine that is a large part of it. I think the remainder is that they quite simply (at least most of them) do not understand the benefit Glass Steagall provided.

[evince]

http://rismedia.com/2004-01-09/latest-occ-regulations-on-predatory-lending-blasted-on-state-level/

Why is it you think only congressional dems count?

How in the hell were any congressional dems going to do anything anyway?

If you recall the R congress at the time had them pretty well shackled.

Go get a list of the laws that Dems were allowed to bring to the floor during that time.

Hell they would not even give them a room to investigate the voting computor fraud.

By the time they took office the lid had blown off and there were a few things on there plate like war and the economy in the dirt.

All 50 governors were pissed at this law and it was designed to KEEP the mess growing.

Now who backed this stripping of the states rights to protect themselves?

[evince]

State officials say new regs will usurp their authority to enforce viable state laws
RISMEDIA, Jan. 9-A barrage of criticism is being sounded this week after a national bank regulator released new rules that state officials say will take away local authority to regulate predatory lending by national banks.

The clamor came after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued two rules this week. State Attorneys General say that one would broadly preempt all state laws against national banks, including predatory lending laws, leaving only narrow exceptions. And the other confers upon the OCC exclusive jurisdiction over national banks, and excludes state attorneys general from enforcing consumer protection laws against national banks.

Although predatory lending is not defined by federal law, and states define abusive lending differently, it usually involves practices that strip equity away from a homeowner.

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer responded to the OCC with his own statement this week in which he said that the regulations are ?designed to protect national banks at the expense of consumers. ? With this action, the OCC is pursuing shamefully bad public policy.?



Read more: http://rismedia.com/2004-01-09/latest-occ-regulations-on-predatory-lending-blasted-on-state-level/#ixzz0YjjGSfP3

[cawacko]

http://rismedia.com/2004-01-09/latest-occ-regulations-on-predatory-lending-blasted-on-state-level/

Why is it you think only congressional dems count?

How in the hell were any congressional dems going to do anything anyway?

If you recall the R congress at the time had them pretty well shackled.

Go get a list of the laws that Dems were allowed to bring to the floor during that time.

Hell they would not even give them a room to investigate the voting computor fraud.

By the time they took office the lid had blown off and there were a few things on there plate like war and the economy in the dirt.

All 50 governors were pissed at this law and it was designed to KEEP the mess growing.

Now who backed this stripping of the states rights to protect themselves?

I knew you could come up with an excuse. So in 2007 and 2008 the Republicans out of power kept the Democrats in Congress from reinstituting Glass-Steagall but in 1999 the Democrats out of power in Congress couldn't keep the Republicans from repealing it?

And now in 2009 with the Dems having total control that excuse doesn't work.

And you say the removal of Glass-Steagall led to this financial meltdown we have faced yet because the economy was bad the Democrats didn't have time to deal with Glass-Steagall? How does that make any sense Desh?

It reasons to me if Glass-Steagall helped cause this mess as you say it would be one of the first things Congress would want to go after.

And what do these articles you keep posting have to do with Glass-Steagall? Nothing that I see.

[evince]

I knew you could come up with an excuse. So in 2007 and 2008 the Republicans out of power kept the Democrats in Congress from reinstituting Glass-Steagall but in 1999 the Democrats out of power in Congress couldn't keep the Republicans from repealing it?

And now in 2009 with the Dems having total control that excuse doesn't work.

And you say the removal of Glass-Steagall led to this financial meltdown we have faced yet because the economy was bad the Democrats didn't have time to deal with Glass-Steagall? How does that make any sense Desh?
It had already exploded you fool. What year did they take the majority?
It reasons to me if Glass-Steagall helped cause this mess as you say it would be one of the first things Congress would want to go after.
Not when the damage was already done and you have a list as long as your arm of things that need fixing

And what do these articles you keep posting have to do with Glass-Steagall? Nothing that I see.

They were the states trying to regulate their own states to keep them safe from the impact of having the law stricken down.

Go read them and realize that the Bush team saw them trying to protect themselves from the gap in laws and trying to write their own in each state, so he made it so their laws were preempted by the federal laws ( nearly non exsistant oversight of the industry).

There were many dems and even some Rs trying to fix this gap and they got fucked by the Rs and Bush

[cawacko]

They were the states trying to regulate their own states to keep them safe from the impact of having the law stricken down.

Go read them and realize that the Bush team saw them trying to protect themselves from the gap in laws and trying to write their own in each state, so he made it so their laws were preempted by the federal laws ( nearly non exsistant oversight of the industry).

There were many dems and even some Rs trying to fix this gap and they got fucked by the Rs and Bush

Desh, I am well aware that the financial markets had imploded or were in the process of imploding in 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. No one here has questioned that. The question you won't answer is why once they got power they wouldn't relook at Glass-Steagall? You say because there was too much to do? Well if you say Glass-Steagall was a huge reason for the financial implosioin wouldn't that be a good place for the Dems to start?

You keep going back to 2004. We are in 2009 now, almost 2010. The Dems have controlled Congress since 2007. What are they doing now? The voters put them in power what are they doing? What are they doing vis-a-vis Glass-Steagall? What other financial laws are more important then in your opinion that the Dems are focusing on or should be focusing on?

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://rismedia.com/2004-01-09/latest-occ-regulations-on-predatory-lending-blasted-on-state-level/

Why is it you think only congressional dems count?

Um... because you continually harp on the fact that the REP Congress didn't do anything. So we asked you WHY it is the DEM LED Congress hasn't done anything since taking power in 2007??????


How in the hell were any congressional dems going to do anything anyway?

A valid point. They are very ineffective whether they are in the minority, have a majority or now as we can see... even if they have a super majority. Point well taken. The Dems are ineffective leaders.


If you recall the R congress at the time had them pretty well shackled.

If you can READ... our question to you is not what they were able to do when in the minority... but what have they done once they got the MAJORITY (and subsequently a SUPER MAJORITY with a DEM PRESIDENT)????


All 50 governors were pissed at this law and it was designed to KEEP the mess growing.

Again... what have your precious Dems done to correct this now that they have had control of Congress for three years?? Or if you prefer... now that they have had control of Congress with super majorities AND a DEM President????


Now who backed this stripping of the states rights to protect themselves?

Both parties...which is precisely what we have been trying to get you to comprehend.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Desh, I am well aware that the financial markets had imploded or were in the process of imploding in 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress. No one here has questioned that. The question you won't answer is why once they got power they wouldn't relook at Glass-Steagall? You say because there was too much to do? Well if you say Glass-Steagall was a huge reason for the financial implosioin wouldn't that be a good place for the Dems to start?

You keep going back to 2004. We are in 2009 now, almost 2010. The Dems have controlled Congress since 2007. What are they doing now? The voters put them in power what are they doing? What are they doing vis-a-vis Glass-Steagall? What other financial laws are more important then in your opinion that the Dems are focusing on or should be focusing on?

What is truly funny is that it wouldn't take much effort at all to put it back in place.

The friggin ACT has already been written... over 70 years ago... just put it back in place and then the dismantling of JPM and Goldman et all can begin.

[evince]

Um... because you continually harp on the fact that the REP Congress didn't do anything. So we asked you WHY it is the DEM LED Congress hasn't done anything since taking power in 2007??????

Like I have already said and you ignored , the damage had already been done by the time they took office. You cant just put it back 8 years later becuase you would have to dismantle the entire banking system first.

A valid point. They are very ineffective whether they are in the minority, have a majority or now as we can see... even if they have a super majority. Point well taken. The Dems are ineffective leaders.
Before the SHIT hit the fan the dems in congress had no fucking power to do anything



If you can READ... our question to you is not what they were able to do when in the minority... but what have they done once they got the MAJORITY (and subsequently a SUPER MAJORITY with a DEM PRESIDENT)????Agian I answered that one you asswink. You cant just reinstate it without completely dismantling the banking system that grew out of the GS not being in place anymore. The economy was still in a huge mess with the fallout still raining down arround us.



Again... what have your precious Dems done to correct this now that they have had control of Congress for three years?? Or if you prefer... now that they have had control of Congress with super majorities AND a DEM President????

They have been tryimg to repair the damage that GS removal caused so they can then reregulate the system.



Both parties...which is precisely what we have been trying to get you to comprehend.

I have never claimed NO dem was involved, that came out of your brain all by its self.

Like I said earlier and you ignored , all govs tried to fix this mess woith state laws and were thwarted by Bush's admin. Some of those govs were Rs.

It is the R party and the cons who have always championed caplitalism unleashed. They still do.

That is why I blame them more.

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have never claimed NO dem was involved, that came out of your brain all by its self.

Like I said earlier and you ignored , all govs tried to fix this mess woith state laws and were thwarted by Bush's admin. Some of those govs were Rs.

It is the R party and the cons who have always championed caplitalism unleashed. They still do.

That is why I blame them more.

All of your comments in Red are simply bullshit. They CAN put Glass Steagall back in place. To pretend they cannot is ridiculous. Yes, it would mean the break up of the big banks.... NOT the entire banking system.

The re-implementation of GS, could include the time line the larger firms would have to spin off their retail banking divisions.

Bottom line is that your precious Dems have done NOTHING to re implement GS.

we did not 'miss' your attempt to steer the conversation away from the DEM LED CONGRESS to the governors Desh.... we pointed out that the Governors have NOTHING to do with the questions we asked you.

While the Reps do indeed champion capitalism, it is blatantly false to pretend they want to do so without regulations. The DEMS supported the Removal of Glass Steagall as did the Reps. All in the name of greater home ownership.

You blame the Reps more because you are a complete partisan hack.

[evince]

Super if you put it back in place then all the banks are in violation of the law.

Youknow it and I know it.

You would then spend months dismatleing the banking system to make it comply with the laws.

get real

[evince]

I blame the Rs because they are the ones who insist that unfettered capitslism is the answer.

They are the ones who always work to dismantle regulations and fight to keep regulations from being implemented.

You really think anything the dems did under Bush would not have been vetoed?

You just keep ignoring that the bomb had already exploded by the time they had any power.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Super if you put it back in place then all the banks are in violation of the law.

Youknow it and I know it.

You would then spend months dismatleing the banking system to make it comply with the laws.

get real

Listen Desh,

AS I STATED.... YOU CAN RE-IMPLMENT GLASS STEAGALL WITH A TIME LINE PROVISION FOR THE BIG BANKS TO SPIN OFF THEIR RETAIL BANKING SIDES.

You are also 100% WRONG in stating that ALL Banks would be in violation. That is quite frankly... BULLSHIT. YES, the large banks would need to break up, but they are ALREADY run as seperate divisions.

Pretending that you cannot do anything is simply a cop out perpetrated by a partisan hack. By your standards we would NEVER be able to put it back in place.

Also... who gives a shit if it would take months getting the system back to GS standards? THAT IS HOW YOU FIX IT.

[evince]

They and Obama were left a few things to do when he first took office.

I think they were letting the fallout settle to see how things stood economically before they attacked the problem tpo see how best to go forward. The damage had been done already and taking time to watch the fallout settle very well may have been the best way forward.

We will see if they were right

[Cancel 2016.2]

They and Obama were left a few things to do when he first took office.

I think they were letting the fallout settle to see how things stood economically before they attacked the problem tpo see how best to go forward. The damage had been done already and taking time to watch the fallout settle very well may have been the best way forward.

We will see if they were right

Yes, they were.

Are you suggesting they are incapable of handling the country?

That is a bogus argument on your part... you blame the Reps for not doing anything (rightfully so) during the mess, then you say the Dems are waiting to see how it plays out first to determine a course of action????

IF as we both agree, the removal of GS was a huge mistake and as we both agree the Reps should have done something to correct the mistake... then HOW can you justify the Dems not doing anything?

GS would have taken a week to re implement. A week. A simple bill stating it would be put back in place coupled with a time restriction on the separation for banks affected by it. DONE.

Waiting serves NO purpose. It is blatantly obvious its removal was a mistake. There is NO need to wait around to see how bad things get.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I blame the Rs because they are the ones who insist that unfettered capitslism is the answer.

They are the ones who always work to dismantle regulations and fight to keep regulations from being implemented.

You really think anything the dems did under Bush would not have been vetoed?

You just keep ignoring that the bomb had already exploded by the time they had any power.

really....i'm shocked

[cawacko]

They and Obama were left a few things to do when he first took office.

I think they were letting the fallout settle to see how things stood economically before they attacked the problem tpo see how best to go forward. The damage had been done already and taking time to watch the fallout settle very well may have been the best way forward.

We will see if they were right

Desh, you said earlier we already knew removing Glass-Steagall was a (big, huge) mistake so what did we need to wait for to figure out? The Dems in Congress have had three to see the fall out. How much more time do you think they need?

[evince]

Desh, you said earlier we already knew removing Glass-Steagall was a (big, huge) mistake so what did we need to wait for to figure out? The Dems in Congress have had three to see the fall out. How much more time do you think they need?

try 10 months.

to allow the banks to stablize before acting may have turned ou to be the best thing.

I wanted it from day one but saying they have not done anything because they never plan to fix it is pretty silly

[evince]

really....i'm shocked


Which party is the deregulation party?

[cawacko]

try 10 months.

to allow the banks to stablize before acting may have turned ou to be the best thing.

I wanted it from day one but saying they have not done anything because they never plan to fix it is pretty silly

They need 10 months on top of 3 years? So they need almost 4 years to try and figure out what to do?

[cawacko]

Which party is the deregulation party?

Libertarians. I wish they had more (any) power.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Which party is the deregulation party?

Why that would be both... as both voted for GS to be eliminated that CLINTON signed

[Cancel 2016.2]

try 10 months.

to allow the banks to stablize before acting may have turned ou to be the best thing.

I wanted it from day one but saying they have not done anything because they never plan to fix it is pretty silly

this is such a pathetic attempt at an excuse.

It would have added confidence to consumers to see that the 'too big to fail' banks were being broken down and re-regulated.

As for your 10 month line... yes... I know you feel the Dems were completely inept while leading both houses of Congress from 2007-2008... we get that. We agree. The Dems were inept leaders during that time.

[evince]

What good would that do to free up loan money?

The peoples confidence doesnt get the banks to loan to them.

[evince]

this is such a pathetic attempt at an excuse.

It would have added confidence to consumers to see that the 'too big to fail' banks were being broken down and re-regulated.

As for your 10 month line... yes... I know you feel the Dems were completely inept while leading both houses of Congress from 2007-2008... we get that. We agree. The Dems were inept leaders during that time.

Presidential veto power.

Would you waste time om something that would just be vetoed?

Again you forget , by the time they had a majority the bomb had ALREADY exploded

[evince]

Why that would be both... as both voted for GS to be eliminated that CLINTON signed

I am fully aware of that.

The next time the Rs present a bill for deregulation with assurances that it will be great foor the economy I bet it wont get very many votes.

Phil Gram was immediately Hired by UBS after he got the dog passed the idiots (including Clinton) who voted for it.

[cawacko]

Presidential veto power.

Would you waste time om something that would just be vetoed?

Again you forget , by the time they had a majority the bomb had ALREADY exploded

A. Politicians waste time on things all the time to score political points regardless of the outcome.

B. Bush was a lame duck President with low poll numbers. Even with that the Democrats in Congress had no ability to pass anything to get to Bush?

When you take a step back you seem to think pretty lowly of your party and what they can do when they are in office.

[cawacko]

I am fully aware of that.

The next time the Rs present a bill for deregulation with assurances that it will be great foor the economy I bet it wont get very many votes.

Phil Gram was immediately Hired by UBS after he got the dog passed the idiots (including Clinton) who voted for it.

Robert Rubin was immediately hired by Citigroup after he pushed for Clinton to sign it.

[NOVA]

Changing the topic won't buy you anything desh.....if Dems truly thought Clinton screwed up in signing away the Glass-Stegal bill, they could have changed the laws....they didn't....
Clinton stands by his decision to this very day.....along with other liberal economists....
so....go away.

75% of House D's voted YES and 84% of Senate D's voted YES....

[Cancel 2016.2]

Presidential veto power.

Would you waste time om something that would just be vetoed?

Again you forget , by the time they had a majority the bomb had ALREADY exploded

without question... YES

You want to talk about the opportunity to stick it to Bush and the Reps... THAT was it. Had the Dems passed it and Bush and the Reps rejected it... the Dems would have had that to play for years.

Again... you pretend it would have taken a lot of time. It would not. They could have had the bill ready in a week and then had an up down vote on it.

Also... you are incorrect that the bomb had already exploded. They took control at the start of 2007. The bomb hadn't gone off at that point. You just want to continually point out how inept the Dem leadership was. On that we agree.

The fact that the uptick rule was removed in June of 2007 allowed the short selling that pummeled many of the banks that led to the consumer panics and runs on Indybank and WaMu etc... it was a chain reaction.

Did you ever notice that no matter how much power the Dems have.... you always claim it is not enough???

When the Reps are in the minority, you state they stop the Dems from doing what needs to be done.

When the Dems are in the minority, you state the minority doesn't have enough power to do anything to stop the Reps.

When the Dems control both houses of Congress, you state, well Bush would have vetoed whatever they did, so why bother?

When the Dems have supermajorities in both Houses of Congress AND they have a DEM President.... you state... well they are just waiting to see what they best approach might be... and by golly all that 'doing nothing' could work!

Bottom line... you CONSISTENTLY provide EXCUSES as to why the DEMS cannot get anything done. Further proof that they are inept.

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am fully aware of that.

The next time the Rs present a bill for deregulation with assurances that it will be great foor the economy I bet it wont get very many votes.

Phil Gram was immediately Hired by UBS after he got the dog passed the idiots (including Clinton) who voted for it.

92-8 vote in the Senate
362-57 in the House

I know you enjoy pretending that the authors bear more responsibility than all that voted for the bill... but you are wrong. Each vote is equal desh...

The Dems HAD THE PRESIDENT..... the REPS did not have a veto proof majority had the Dems held party lines.

I know... the Dems got 'tricked' again... didn't they?

Yet more proof they are inept.

[cawacko]

What good would that do to free up loan money?

The peoples confidence doesnt get the banks to loan to them.

I'm sorry Desh. So I got to talk to a CEO of a Fortune 10 tonight. I briefly brought up politics beausse when you are in his position there is no time for partisanship. Obama, Hillary, McCain, W. they all call him and jock him.

he laughs at the policiticiansas. He laughs at the Republicans and laughs at the Demcrats.

Hey girl, i have his number. If you would like to set a Fortune 10 CEO/Chairman in place in person I can set it up for you. Represent girl for the Dem-o-crat-ics.

[Socrtease]

No, fortunately some of us have no need to PAY to have sex.Oh young Paduwan, pay for sex all men do. different is the currency, but pay for sex all men do.

[Cancel 2016.2]

What good would that do to free up loan money?

The peoples confidence doesnt get the banks to loan to them.

You truly are a partisan hack...

The breaking up of the banks would have kept all the bad CDO debt with the INVESTMENT banks that created them. It would have given confidence to the people in that they would understand their banks were not going to go under as a result of the bullshit created by the idiots in DC and on Wall Street.

Bottom line... we get it... you are going to continue creating one excuse after another as to why the Dems yet again... could not get anything done.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh young Paduwan, pay for sex all men do. different is the currency, but pay for sex all men do.

Ah old fart... that is not quite the case... I am single... yet I do not pay for sex... some of us are intelligent enough to have friends with benefits... no strings attached. It works quite well.

No Valentines day BS, no monthly BS, no 'why did you forget my bday', no 'does this outfit look good'... no honey do list...

I win....

[Socrtease]

Ah old fart... that is not quite the case... I am single... yet I do not pay for sex... some of us are intelligent enough to have friends with benefits... no strings attached. It works quite well.

No Valentines day BS, no monthly BS, no 'why did you forget my bday', no 'does this outfit look good'... no honey do list...

I win....

That gravy train will eventually come to an end young man. Enjoy the ride while you can.

[Cancel 2016.2]

That gravy train will eventually come to an end young man. Enjoy the ride while you can.

Not if I stay single.... there are always fwb candidates out there... making more is not very hard.

[Socrtease]

Not if I stay single.... there are always fwb candidates out there... making more is not very hard.Yeah but eventually they see you for what you are. A noncommittal nookyhound. Women will talk.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah but eventually they see you for what you are. A noncommittal nookyhound. Women will talk.

They know that going in. I am very clear about that up front. The thing is... there are women out there who also are not looking for a long term commitment.