Originally posted by: Coba|t
The CRA was on their wish list for a while, and they finally got it tacked on to the same bills they were killing for years.
Wrong is wrong and voting for an atrocity because its glazed with some pretty icing isn't a valid excuse in my book.
Originally posted by: Coba|t
The elimination of glass-steagall was supported by Republicans because the idea fit in with their goal of deregulation. This is an acknowledged fact.
No argument there......the Republicans are deregulation, big business, whores but all I'm saying is lets stop pretending the Democrats aren't just as for hire and quid-pro-quo.
Lets not forget that it was the Democrats that drafted and passed TARP.....and must I really post how much these major investment banks have given to which party? It's like saying that only one party is benefiting from big oil.....it's a fallacy. Even if Reps are more blatant about it....they both are cashing the checks.
Example:
http://dallasblog.nofloppies.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1006064
Did Democrats ultimately vote in favor? Yes of course. Would they have voted for this bill if it had been striped of the CRA provisions? No, and it certainly would've been vetoed by then President Clinton - as he made clear during negotiations of the bill.
Again.....this is like supporting slavery because it had a poverty housing provision in it. This argument is fucking bonkers!! You may be willing to openly excuse a political party that, even though, in your own words, you just admitted are either incompetent, have been outright duped, or entirely corrupt, but I'm not so willing to do that.
Stand by your fucking convictions or you are equally culpable in my mind.
The Dems knew exactly what they were doing.....they were cashing in the lobbyist checks too....and ultimately used an equally demagogic justification, of it's for the poor, to do something they were itching to do anyways.
My post below proves this definitively......when in doubt just follow the money.
Its this distinction that draws a distinction between the parties when it comes to the deregulation of the financial industry - had the bill been a stand-alone elimination of the glass-steagall act, it would've been voted down by Democrats and vetoed by Clinton.
Just like TARP was voted down in a Democratically controlled Congress and House? Oh wait, it was, but your Demy buddies still forced it through despite due process.
Was there a CRA in that too? What in that bail-out package benefited the poor may I ask? What is the shit colored sparkles that made that little gem digestible exactly?
You are delusional to believe that only one party were for hire whores openly working for the banking industry. There is a reason that Hilary is going to get the nod to head the IMF and it isn't because she is a Republican.....it's because she plays the political game just as well as all the other sellouts that we have representing us in this country today.
Dig into what money is going where and tell me with a straight face that only Republicans are banking profiteers that were benefiting from "too big to fail" bank deregulation....or reregulation.
This was simply a re-affirmation of the savings and loan lessons that weren't learned - deregulation isn't always a good idea, and sometimes, its a very bad idea.
No argument there.....don't deregulate anything that doesn't have sufficeint market competition behind it. Doing so benefits absolutely nobody except for premium shareholders and the elite who run that antitrust.
Just as taxcuts for just the rich benefit nobody but those same exact people.
I'm not some partisan drone or blind ideologue......that's why neither party deserves a pass here. I'm not defending the Republicans as much as I'm pointing out how equally tainted the hands of the Democrats are here.
There is a reason that Clinton reapointed Greenspan, the quintessential king of deregulation......just as there is a reason that Obama picked Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Giethner to be his economic platform.
Date Feb, 15th 1999........
You would have to be stone drunk on partisan kool-aid to think that all this is just a mere coincidence.
Post edited by Mockery at 6/29/2011 2:09:04 AM