Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who Should Government Serve?
- Thread starter Windship
- Start date
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Other short titles
Acronyms(colloquial) GLBA
Nicknames glibba, ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999
Enacted by the 106th United States Congress
Effective November 12, 1999
Citations
Public law 106–102
Statutes at Large 113 Stat. 1338
Codification
Acts repealed Glass–Steagall Act
Titles amended
U.S.C.sections created 12 U.S.C. § 24a, § 248b, § 1831v,§ 1831w, § 1831x, § 1831y,§ 1848a, § 2908
15 U.S.C. § 80b-10a
U.S.C. sections amended 12 U.S.C. § 78, § 377
15 U.S.C. § 80
Legislative history
A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney,Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[3] Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".[4]
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
.svg)
Other short titles
- Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999
- Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
- Prime Act
- Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999
Acronyms(colloquial) GLBA
Nicknames glibba, ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999
Enacted by the 106th United States Congress
Effective November 12, 1999
Citations
Public law 106–102
Statutes at Large 113 Stat. 1338
Codification
Acts repealed Glass–Steagall Act
Titles amended
U.S.C.sections created 12 U.S.C. § 24a, § 248b, § 1831v,§ 1831w, § 1831x, § 1831y,§ 1848a, § 2908
15 U.S.C. § 80b-10a
U.S.C. sections amended 12 U.S.C. § 78, § 377
15 U.S.C. § 80
Legislative history
- Introduced in the Senate as S. 900 by Phil Gramm(R-TX) on April 28, 1999
- Committee consideration by Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
- Passed the Senate on May 6, 1999 (54-44)
- Passed the House as the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999 (343-86)
- Reported by the joint conference committee onNovember 2, 1999; agreed to by the Senate onNovember 4, 1999 (90-8) and by the House onNovember 4, 1999 (362-57)
- Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999
A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney,Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[3] Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".[4]
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #23
Previously restricted papers reveal attempts to rush president to support act, later blamed for deepening banking crisis
A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999. Photo: Steve Helber /AP
Dan Roberts in Washington
@RobertsDan
Saturday 19 April 2014 09.28 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 11 May 201617.
This article is 2 years old
Shares
11,477
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama#comments
Wall Street deregulation, blamed for deepening the banking crisis, was aggressively pushed by advisers to Bill Clinton who have also been at the heart of current White House policy-making, according to newly disclosed documents from his presidential library.
The previously restricted papers reveal two separate attempts, in 1995 and 1997, to hurry Clinton into supporting a repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and allow investment banks, insurers and retail banks to merge.
A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The White House papers show only limited discussion of the risks of such deregulation, but include a private note which reveals that details of a deal with Citigroup to clear its merger in advance of the legislation were deleted from official documents, for fear of it leaking out.
“Please eat this paper after you have read this,” jokes the hand-written 1998 note addressed to Gene Sperling, then director of Clinton’s National Economic Council.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Photograph: Clinton Library
Earlier, in February 1995, newly-appointed Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Bo Cutter and senior advisers including John Podesta gave the president three days to decide whether to back a repeal of Glass-Steagall.
In what Cutter described as “an action forcing event”, he wrote to Clinton on 21 February, telling him Rubin wanted to announce the policy before it was raised by the House banking committee on 1 March.
“In order to position Secretary Rubin – rather than any of the regulators – as the Administration’s chief spokesman on this issue, the Secretary intends to discuss the Administration’s position at a speech which will be covered by the press in New York on 27 February,” wrote Cutter on 21 February.
“It is therefore necessary to have an agreed-upon Administration position by the end of the day on Friday, 24 February.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
Podesta, who was then staff secretary but went on to become Clinton’s chief of staff, wrote a covering note telling the president that all his senior advisers backed the plan, although he noted the danger that “allowing banks to engage in riskier activities like securities or insurance could subject the deposit insurance fund to added risk”.
But Clinton’s advisers repeatedly reassured him that the decision to let Wall Street dismantle regulatory barriers designed to protect the public after the Great Depression simply represented inevitable modernisation.
“The argument for reform is that the separation between banking and other financial services mandated by Glass-Steagall is out of date in a world where banks, securities firms and insurance companies offer similar products and where firms outside the US do not face such restrictions,” wrote Podesta.
Podesta currently works at the White House as special adviser to President Barack Obama. Sperling stood down as director of Obama’s National Economic Council last month.
Along with Cutter, who worked on Obama’s transition committee, all three men were close allies of Rubin, who spearheaded the deregulation of Wall Street before joining the board of Citigroup in 1999. In 2007, he briefly became its chairman.
The closeness of Obama’s team to the deregulation policies of the late 1990s is well known and has been criticised by campaigners as a reason for the current administration’s reluctance to institute more aggressive Wall Street reforms after the banking crash.
But the new documents cast fresh light on the way the White House was first ushered toward deregulation by the tight group of Rubin allies.
A similar apparent attempt to rush president Clinton’s decision-making occurred later in the process, in 1997.
In a letter received by the president on 19 May, Clinton is again given just three days to decide whether to proceed with the deregulation agenda.
“The attached memorandum asks you to authorize Treasury to proceed to announce and submit their financial services modernization proposal,” writes Sperling.
“Secretary Rubin intends to introduce the proposal in a 21 May speech, and to testify before the House Banking Committee the first week of June.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
In his letter, Rubin reassures Clinton that the issue need not take up much of his attention.
“Should you approve our recommendation to move forward, the proposal would be a Treasury initiative, and would not require a significant time commitment from the White House,” writes the Treasury secretary.
“I and my staff will manage the process of advancing the proposal,” he adds.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Photograph: Clinton Library
The sense that the president need not concern himself with the detail is amplified by his own staff, who appear happy for him to be pushed along by the Treasury timetable.
In a covering note from staff secretary Todd Stern, Clinton is warned: “The attached memo is long, detailed and technical, but you can get the essentials by looking at the first four pages.”
Stern adds: “If you agree. Treasury will, tomorrow, put out some advance word on the Rubin speech.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
Throughout the documents, which are among 7,000 pages released by the Clinton library on Friday, there is little discussion of internal opposition to repealing Glass-Steagall, although some memos inadvertently touch on the risks that ultimately proved so expensive to the US taxpayer.
“Notwithstanding the pounding Treasury took today, there’s still much to their position on the regulatory structure (which really depends on the proposition that we’re not good at regulating complex financial (let alone non-financial) companies, but we’re pretty good at walling off the bank to protect the taxpayers),” concludes Clinton adviser Ellen Seidman in one 1997 memo.
A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999. Photo: Steve Helber /AP
Dan Roberts in Washington
@RobertsDan
Saturday 19 April 2014 09.28 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 11 May 201617.
This article is 2 years old
Shares
11,477
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama#comments
Wall Street deregulation, blamed for deepening the banking crisis, was aggressively pushed by advisers to Bill Clinton who have also been at the heart of current White House policy-making, according to newly disclosed documents from his presidential library.
The previously restricted papers reveal two separate attempts, in 1995 and 1997, to hurry Clinton into supporting a repeal of the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act and allow investment banks, insurers and retail banks to merge.
A Financial Services Modernization Act was passed by Congress in 1999, giving retrospective clearance to the 1998 merger of Citigroup and Travelers Group and unleashing a wave of Wall Street consolidation that was later blamed for forcing taxpayers to spend billions bailing out the enlarged banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The White House papers show only limited discussion of the risks of such deregulation, but include a private note which reveals that details of a deal with Citigroup to clear its merger in advance of the legislation were deleted from official documents, for fear of it leaking out.
“Please eat this paper after you have read this,” jokes the hand-written 1998 note addressed to Gene Sperling, then director of Clinton’s National Economic Council.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Photograph: Clinton Library
Earlier, in February 1995, newly-appointed Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, his deputy Bo Cutter and senior advisers including John Podesta gave the president three days to decide whether to back a repeal of Glass-Steagall.
In what Cutter described as “an action forcing event”, he wrote to Clinton on 21 February, telling him Rubin wanted to announce the policy before it was raised by the House banking committee on 1 March.
“In order to position Secretary Rubin – rather than any of the regulators – as the Administration’s chief spokesman on this issue, the Secretary intends to discuss the Administration’s position at a speech which will be covered by the press in New York on 27 February,” wrote Cutter on 21 February.
“It is therefore necessary to have an agreed-upon Administration position by the end of the day on Friday, 24 February.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
Podesta, who was then staff secretary but went on to become Clinton’s chief of staff, wrote a covering note telling the president that all his senior advisers backed the plan, although he noted the danger that “allowing banks to engage in riskier activities like securities or insurance could subject the deposit insurance fund to added risk”.
But Clinton’s advisers repeatedly reassured him that the decision to let Wall Street dismantle regulatory barriers designed to protect the public after the Great Depression simply represented inevitable modernisation.
“The argument for reform is that the separation between banking and other financial services mandated by Glass-Steagall is out of date in a world where banks, securities firms and insurance companies offer similar products and where firms outside the US do not face such restrictions,” wrote Podesta.
Podesta currently works at the White House as special adviser to President Barack Obama. Sperling stood down as director of Obama’s National Economic Council last month.
Along with Cutter, who worked on Obama’s transition committee, all three men were close allies of Rubin, who spearheaded the deregulation of Wall Street before joining the board of Citigroup in 1999. In 2007, he briefly became its chairman.
The closeness of Obama’s team to the deregulation policies of the late 1990s is well known and has been criticised by campaigners as a reason for the current administration’s reluctance to institute more aggressive Wall Street reforms after the banking crash.
But the new documents cast fresh light on the way the White House was first ushered toward deregulation by the tight group of Rubin allies.
A similar apparent attempt to rush president Clinton’s decision-making occurred later in the process, in 1997.
In a letter received by the president on 19 May, Clinton is again given just three days to decide whether to proceed with the deregulation agenda.
“The attached memorandum asks you to authorize Treasury to proceed to announce and submit their financial services modernization proposal,” writes Sperling.
“Secretary Rubin intends to introduce the proposal in a 21 May speech, and to testify before the House Banking Committee the first week of June.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
In his letter, Rubin reassures Clinton that the issue need not take up much of his attention.
“Should you approve our recommendation to move forward, the proposal would be a Treasury initiative, and would not require a significant time commitment from the White House,” writes the Treasury secretary.
“I and my staff will manage the process of advancing the proposal,” he adds.
FacebookTwitterPinterest
Photograph: Clinton Library
The sense that the president need not concern himself with the detail is amplified by his own staff, who appear happy for him to be pushed along by the Treasury timetable.
In a covering note from staff secretary Todd Stern, Clinton is warned: “The attached memo is long, detailed and technical, but you can get the essentials by looking at the first four pages.”
Stern adds: “If you agree. Treasury will, tomorrow, put out some advance word on the Rubin speech.”
Photograph: Clinton Library
Throughout the documents, which are among 7,000 pages released by the Clinton library on Friday, there is little discussion of internal opposition to repealing Glass-Steagall, although some memos inadvertently touch on the risks that ultimately proved so expensive to the US taxpayer.
“Notwithstanding the pounding Treasury took today, there’s still much to their position on the regulatory structure (which really depends on the proposition that we’re not good at regulating complex financial (let alone non-financial) companies, but we’re pretty good at walling off the bank to protect the taxpayers),” concludes Clinton adviser Ellen Seidman in one 1997 memo.
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #24
Anyone who tries to explain the Wall Street crisis in a single sound-bite is foolish…or worse. But House Democratic Leaders have found a culprit they can agree on: deregulation.
“This is the fruit of decades of ‘leave the market alone, don’t regulate it. It will take care of itself,” Says House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank. His solution? “Clearly we’ve got to get some regulation here.”
“The Bush Administration’s eight long years of failed deregulation policies” is the problem, declares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“A stark failure of the economy and this administration’s laissez faire, take the referee off the field, let anyone do whatever they want to do and everything will be fine,” adds House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
The problem with the Democrats’ “deregulation did it” meme is that it didn’t happen – deregulation that is.
The most significant financial regulatory action in the Bush Administration was Sarbanes-Oxley (Sarbox), a law significantly increasing regulation of the accounting and securities businesses. It spawned twenty – count-em – twenty new rulemakings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and created a whole new regulatory organ, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
If that is the “deregulation” House Leaders want to reverse, I’m with them. Describing what happened during the Bush Administration as “deregulation” just doesn’t square with the facts.
Bad choices by government have contributed to the current crisis, but calls to “get some regulation here,” neither illuminate those mistakes nor suggest what choices may be better.
PCAOB’s job is to prevent unexpected bankruptcies due to over-valued assets. Its chosen method was a welter a new accounting rules. Not only did the rules not work, some commentators have pointed to the PCAOB accounting rules as triggering the current crisis.
One result of Sarbox was for capital to flee to private equity funds, or to London, beyond reach of the new rules. This capital flight weakened American investment banks by shrinking their markets. And by the way, the three companies that have required rescue were all regulated by PCAOB. Less-regulated private equity funds seem to be doing just fine.
It is true that the 1999 repeal of the 1930s-era Glass-Steagal Act, requiring separation of commercial and investment banking, represented significant deregulation. But that repeal was signed by President Clinton, and implemented enthusiastically by his regulators. A good thing too, since that deregulation allowed Wall Street’s two remaining investment banks to avoid bailouts this week by transforming themselves into commercial banks.
So it seems some Bush-era regulation may have triggered the current crisis, and some Clinton-era deregulation provided an escape valve. Does this prove that more regulation is bad, and less is good? The wiser conclusion is that there seem to be good and bad ways to regulate.
Anyone who has paid attention over the last ten days has to conclude that financial regulation is a complex business. Treasury, the Fed, SEC, FDIC, and state insurance regulators all play a role. There are even international standards in play. Its an area not well suited to sound-bites.
It would be nice, once the immediate crisis is addressed, if Congress took a considered look at this regulatory contraption. Undoubtedly there are some parts that aren’t working well.
“This is the fruit of decades of ‘leave the market alone, don’t regulate it. It will take care of itself,” Says House Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank. His solution? “Clearly we’ve got to get some regulation here.”
“The Bush Administration’s eight long years of failed deregulation policies” is the problem, declares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“A stark failure of the economy and this administration’s laissez faire, take the referee off the field, let anyone do whatever they want to do and everything will be fine,” adds House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
The problem with the Democrats’ “deregulation did it” meme is that it didn’t happen – deregulation that is.
The most significant financial regulatory action in the Bush Administration was Sarbanes-Oxley (Sarbox), a law significantly increasing regulation of the accounting and securities businesses. It spawned twenty – count-em – twenty new rulemakings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and created a whole new regulatory organ, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
If that is the “deregulation” House Leaders want to reverse, I’m with them. Describing what happened during the Bush Administration as “deregulation” just doesn’t square with the facts.
Bad choices by government have contributed to the current crisis, but calls to “get some regulation here,” neither illuminate those mistakes nor suggest what choices may be better.
PCAOB’s job is to prevent unexpected bankruptcies due to over-valued assets. Its chosen method was a welter a new accounting rules. Not only did the rules not work, some commentators have pointed to the PCAOB accounting rules as triggering the current crisis.
One result of Sarbox was for capital to flee to private equity funds, or to London, beyond reach of the new rules. This capital flight weakened American investment banks by shrinking their markets. And by the way, the three companies that have required rescue were all regulated by PCAOB. Less-regulated private equity funds seem to be doing just fine.
It is true that the 1999 repeal of the 1930s-era Glass-Steagal Act, requiring separation of commercial and investment banking, represented significant deregulation. But that repeal was signed by President Clinton, and implemented enthusiastically by his regulators. A good thing too, since that deregulation allowed Wall Street’s two remaining investment banks to avoid bailouts this week by transforming themselves into commercial banks.
So it seems some Bush-era regulation may have triggered the current crisis, and some Clinton-era deregulation provided an escape valve. Does this prove that more regulation is bad, and less is good? The wiser conclusion is that there seem to be good and bad ways to regulate.
Anyone who has paid attention over the last ten days has to conclude that financial regulation is a complex business. Treasury, the Fed, SEC, FDIC, and state insurance regulators all play a role. There are even international standards in play. Its an area not well suited to sound-bites.
It would be nice, once the immediate crisis is addressed, if Congress took a considered look at this regulatory contraption. Undoubtedly there are some parts that aren’t working well.
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
- 265
- Banned
- #26
A pure democracy is just mob rule, a breeding ground for dictatorships. Much like socialismrustic called Democracy "a shit eating Democracy". What a fool.
You seem rather confused about the terms you throw around, that's all.
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #29
A pure democracy is just mob rule, a breeding ground for dictatorships. Much like socialismrustic called Democracy "a shit eating Democracy". What a fool.
So Democracy is a bad thing and you want an oligarchy...can I ask you guys?...are your wealthy?
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #31
A pure democracy is just mob rule, a breeding ground for dictatorships. Much like socialismrustic called Democracy "a shit eating Democracy". What a fool.
You seem rather confused about the terms you throw around, that's all.
Really? What, exactly are you confused about?
Fenton Lum
Gold Member
- May 7, 2016
- 22,735
- 1,442
- 265
- Banned
- #33
A pure democracy is just mob rule, a breeding ground for dictatorships. Much like socialismrustic called Democracy "a shit eating Democracy". What a fool.
You seem rather confused about the terms you throw around, that's all.
Really? What, exactly are you confused about?
Cute.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 284,518
- 155,785
- 2,615
Let me ask as well...how do you feel about the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution?
Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution
Windship
VIP Member
- May 27, 2014
- 3,096
- 131
- 85
- Thread starter
- #38
Dear Windship:
Read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It tells you the purpose of government. State governments are a little different, but the basics are the same.
Since you apparently believe that "Government" favors "corporations" over people, you apparently lack even a basic understanding of what a corporation is.
A corporation is a fictitious "person," created by the state at the request of an investor (or a group of investors). Corporations ARE people. They are investors, employees, officers, and directors. When Government passes a law that seems to support corporations, those laws are benefitting (in theory at least), the owners, employees, customers, suppliers, service providers, and lenders of that corporation.
I AGREE WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR THE CUSTOMER THING.
You gave no examples of "government ruling for corporations," but I will, just for illustration. Let's say the state legislature passes a law that says that ExxonMobile can drill for oil in the middle of a state park. You are horrified, right?
HOW BOUT THE TPP, THE TTIP AND TISA? THE TPP ALLOWS EXACTLY THAT.
That law is intended to create benefits for the stockholders, employees, vendors, service providers, and customers of ExxonMobile, as well as to provide additional tax revenue for the state, which benefits everyone living in that state.
On the other hand, the people visiting that state park may have their enjoyment reduced a bit.
Legislatures have to balance costs and benefits. If you don't like their assessment, vote the bastards out.
I AGREE WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR THE CUSTOMER THING.
DRILLING IN THE PARK? HOW BOUT THE TPP, THE TTIP AND TISA? THE TPP ALLOWS EXACTLY THAT.
TAXES? LINK PLEASE. Benifits everyone? IS THAT WHAT A CORPORATION DOES? WATCHES OUT FOR THE PUBLIC?
VOTE THEM OUT? LMFAO. RUN THAT BY THE DEBATE COMMISSION. YOU KNOW THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS ANYMORE.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
We're about to get our dictatorship on.
esthermoon
Gold Member
Government should serve people
But that's just dream
Real politics is a nightmare...they only serve their masters (i.e. rich people, bankers, people like that)
But that's just dream
Real politics is a nightmare...they only serve their masters (i.e. rich people, bankers, people like that)
Similar threads
- Replies
- 203
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 106
- Replies
- 110
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 148
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 113
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 467
- Replies
- 89
- Views
- 745
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8404
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 478
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-