Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

A year after the financial system nearly collapsed, the nation's biggest banks are bigger and regaining their appetite for risk.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others , which have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid , are once more betting big on bonds, commodities and exotic financial products, trading that nearly stopped during the financial crisis.

That Wall Street is making money again in essentially the same ways that thrust the banking system into chaos last fall is reason for concern on several levels, financial analysts and government officials say.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Phoenix

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Foxes guarding the hen house.
Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, etc...

Gee I wonder what the outcome will be.

Danni will be along soon to blame everything on Reagan, but this mess came thank to Bill Clionton, who in 1999 signed the Financial Services Modernization Act.

Since 1933 the Glass-Steagall Act, and later the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act, mandated the separation of banks, insurance companies and securities firms.

Clinton changed that, allowing banks to acquire other financial businesses. Even though that is what brought about the Great Depression, and last year's meltdown.

The incentives have not changed, so of course these people are doing what they know best, high-velocity deals to make quick bucks.

Uh, no. It was the Graham-Leach-Billey Act that overturned Glass-Steagall. Three Republicans, many attempts, one success.

Thank you GOP for overturning Glass-Steagall and creating this huge mess!!

"...this mess came thank(sic) to Bill Clionton(sic), who in 1999 signed the Financial Services Modernization Act."

Lucky for a hack like Vernon, the author of the bill gets no credit or blame.

Probably because Phil Gramm had an (R) after his name.

Nor will Vernon mention it was inserted at the 11th hour into an Omnibus Spending Bill.

"Lawrence Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, says an overhaul of financial regulations is needed as soon as possible to keep the financial system safe over the long haul."

They'll increase the oversight powers of the FED and it will all be cotton candy and rainbows, the end.

They'll increase the oversight powers of the FED and it will all be cotton candy and rainbows, the end. -- #5 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

I know *you* know this, but Greenspan has candidly admitted he just plain misjudged the situation -- he had the power to intervene, but didn't think it was necessary.

Spitzer was on one of Zakaria's news programs last week arguing that the problem wasn't the absence of legal means, it was the failure of regulators to use the legal means they had. He dodged Zakaria's direct questioning re: Geithner (former Chair of NY Fed) but implied his answer that Geithner's lax regulation was partly at fault.

#2 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-14 04:22 AM

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 04:31 AM

Vern's a hack for pretending a bill authored by republicans is "Clinton's Fault™."

Danforth's a hack for pretending Clinton had to vote for it because of when it was inserted.

Not on this bill I don't think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. 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. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.

www.businessweek.com

Funny how partisan hacks use such an example of bipartisan legislation to sling mud.

"This wasn't something they forced me into."

All I said was the author was Phil Gramm, it was inserted at the 11th hour into an Omnibus Bill, and Vernon was more than happy to ignore the author.

All true.

All I said was the author was Phil Gramm, it was inserted at the 11th hour into an Omnibus Bill, and Vernon was more than happy to ignore the author.

All true.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 12:14 PM

I didn't say it wasn't.

But the "inserted at the 11th hour into an Omnibus Bill" statement was meant to minimize Clinton's vote / support for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, was it not?

"But the "inserted at the 11th hour into an Omnibus Bill" statement was meant to minimize Clinton's vote / support for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, was it not?"

I guess it was in your mind.

The facts, however, remain. And Vernon ignored -- of all people -- the author of the bill.

I guess it was in your mind.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 12:51 PM

If that wasn't the intention, I fully apologize for my post and take back the characterization of yours as political hackery.

...
While an argument may be made that Clinton didn't have much choice but to vote for it given the way it was introduced, the fact remains, Gramm-Leach-Bliley received bipartisan support, and Clinton defends his vote as the right thing not because of the circumstances of it's insertion into the Omnibus bill, but because he believed it was sound legislation.

"If that wasn't the intention, I fully apologize for my post and take back the characterization of yours as political hackery."

No need to apologize; I'm sure there was at least SOME aspect of hackery. I just try to counterbalance singular-blame posts with the whole picture. "Clinton defends his vote as the right thing not because of the circumstances of it's insertion into the Omnibus bill, but because he believed it was sound legislation."

True. He also admits he was wrong, something the Verns and the Phil Gramms of the world won't ever admit.

Wait, are we talking about "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" or the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act?"

Sorry...the quoted part in the second paragraph should be a new paragraph. It was LoD's statement, and should have stood alone. My apologies.

"Wait, are we talking about "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" or the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act?""

Ah, shit, I may have confused them. Too many days without sleep....

Ah, shit, I may have confused them. Too many days without sleep....

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-14 01:46 PM

No worries, I was confusing them too, yet have had plenty of sleep. What's my excuse? haha

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable