Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23687)	10/10/2008 8:19:00 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25737

What the media and Democrats never tell you: {How Wall Street Bankers bought a President and destroyed the American Economy in ten short years and walked away with TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!} Over the last 50 years has fallen into the hands of foreign investors. With the US Investment Banks now heavily financed by BILLIONS OF DOLLAR loans -- fueled by oil profits, Wall Street has “morphed” from just being ‘heavily influenced’ by foreign entities to answering to “new owners.” The polls now predict that these ‘New Proprietors’ will, in less than a month, soon own another President – Barack Hussein Obama. While ‘virtually’ all readers of this post will quickly dismiss this information as ‘wild’ imagination and most will not read it at all, the historical facts behind this story are “Rock Solid” and can not be refuted! Rubin calls for modernization through reform of Glass-Steagall Act. Publication: Journal of Accountancy Date: Monday, May 1 1995 {Destruction of America and the American economy began when Wall Street banks bought themselves a President – weeks after Glass Steagall was overturned by the Clinton Administration, the Mastermind Robert E. Rubin 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. The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted during the Great Depression to restrict the securities activities and affiliations of banks and has long been seen as having separated commercial banking. The act was intended to protect banks, prevent conflicts of interest and other abuses and safeguard the financial system. Rubin said supporters of the act today say Glass-Steagall is necessary to protect the federal deposit insurance system. "However," said Rubin, "the banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933." He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. "U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically," said the Treasury secretary. "Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly." 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. The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted during the Great Depression to restrict the securities activities and affiliations of banks and has long been seen as having separated commercial banking. The act was intended to protect banks, prevent conflicts of interest and other abuses and safeguard the financial system. Rubin said supporters of the act today say Glass-Steagall is necessary to protect the federal deposit insurance system. "However," said Rubin, "the banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933." He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. "U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically," said the Treasury secretary. "Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly." Rubin said Glass-Steagall imposed unnecessary costs and made providing financial services less efficient and more costly. He said the act can "conceivably impede safety and soundness by limiting revenue diversification." Rubin also said many legitimate concerns were addressed adequately outside the act, including the numerous steps taken to safeguard against risky and abusive bank transactions and to protect the deposit insurance fund. Among Rubin's recommendations for financial modernization were * Permitting a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to affiliate with a securities firm, insurance company or other financial company. * Repealing section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act. Section 20 prohibits a bank that is a federal reserve system member from affiliating with a company principally engaged in underwriting or dealing in securities that a national bank cannot underwrite or deal in directly. * Allowing insured depository institutions to affiliate only with firms that were well capitalized and well managed and had internal controls that adequately managed financial and operational risk, and only if the institutions' safety and soundness were unimpaired. * Maintaining the Federal Reserve Board's authority to impose consolidated capital standards as a safeguard on bank holding companies whose subsidiary insured depository institutions constitute their principal business. Rubin said bills introduced in the House and the Senate to modernize the financial services system were highly constructive, although somewhat different from the Clinton administration's recommendations, and that a bipartisan effort could yield significant results this year Rubin with helping create the conditions for the Financial crisis of 2007–2008, as a result of the policies he pursued as Treasury Secretary. Together with then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives, when such regulation was proposed by then-head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born. Over-exposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities - or credit default swaps (CDS) was a key reason for the failure of US financial insitutions Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008. In 1999, affirming his career-long interest in markets, Mr. Rubin joined Citigroup. Of note, the supermerger between Travelers Group and Citicorp was facilitated by the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. {Written in 1995}

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23687)	10/10/2008 9:22:48 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25737

Palin abused her authority as Governor...so says a bipartisan (republican dominated) legislative panel. Easy to see this one coming, what with all the blocking the McCain/Palin camp has been doing up there in Alaska. _____________________ Legislative panel: Palin abused authority 57 minutes ago ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor. The Republican vice presidential nominee has been accused of firing a commissioner to settle a family dispute. Palin supporters have called the investigation politically motivated. Monegan says he was dismissed as retribution for resisting pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Alaska lawmakers have emerged from a private session in Anchorage where they spent more than six hours discussing a politically charged ethics report into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her state public safety commissioner. The legislative panel began its public session by discussing whether to release the report's findings. The investigation was examining whether Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, fired a state commissioner to settle a family dispute. The report was also expected to touch on whether Palin's husband meddled in state affairs and whether her administration inappropriately accessed employee medical records. Critics claim Palin fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan after months of pressure on him to fire Mike Wooten, a state trooper involved in a nasty divorce and custody dispute with the governor's sister. Lawmakers indicated they planned to release the report even though there was disagreement about its findings. "I think there are some problems in this report," Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23687)	10/11/2008 11:01:50 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "No, I didn't read it, I asked a question and you ignored it..." That EXPLAINS why you missed my answer... if you didn't read it. I refer you (especially) to the bolded portion, which is a clear answer to you question: Message 25054493 (However, it seems that you still have not answered the follow-up question that I asked. If you want to establish some sort of new 'requirements' for a candidate to be able to run for the American Presidency... how do you propose to do that? Are you suggesting that we amend our Constitution?)