What would you do if crazed fundamentalist republicans took over the country

[nysprod]

Um, not quite. First, his name is Robert Rubin.

Second, you’re talking about the Gram-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed some important parts of the Glass-Steagall financial regulatory regime. The legislation was introduced by Republican Senator Phil Gramm and Republican Representative Jim Leach. Republican Representative Thomas Bliley signed on as a co-sponsor later. The Clinton White House actually threatened to veto early versions of the bill. It was passed by Congress along basically partisan lines. Clinton eventually signed the bill, but by the time he did, Lawrence Summers had been Treasury Secretary for more than six months.

Rubin couldn’t have talked Clinton into signing the bill, because by the time it was signed, Rubin was no longer a member of the Administration. Certainly Rubin advised Clinton as the GLB was making its way through Congress, but this was a Republican bill from start to finish.

I don't wish to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican thing...I'm independent, I consider issues on their own merit and I've voted for democratic and republican candidates when I agreed with their ideas.

Yes, Gramm-Leach was a republican bill but the legislation garnered wide bipartisan support, with Dems voting 75% and 84% yes in the House and Senate respectively. There's no way Clinton would have vetoed the bill.

Rubin had been Chairman of Goldman Sachs (the major pusher of toxic securities in the post de-regulation years) prior to becoming Clinton's first director of the National Economic Council from January '93 to January '95. He then served as Treasury Secretary until July '99. Summers was Rubin's protege and assistant at Treasury before becoming secretary himself upon Rubin's departure.

Rubin was in an immense position of power after working with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and the IMF to effectively combat and contain financial crises in Russian, Asian, and Latin American financial markets in '97 and '98. In '97, Rubin and Greenspan strongly opposed giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight of over-the-counter credit derivatives, which played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis, even though he later said in his autobiography that "derivatives could pose significant problems and that many people who used derivatives did not fully understand the risks they were taking."

In any event, de-regulation was something that Wall St. and the big banks had wanted for many years, there's no question that Rubin was absolutely in favor of it, he guided the language of the bill and advised Clinton that it would be a good thing. That Summers was secretary at the exact time of passage has no bearing, his thinking on the issue was exactly as Rubin's.

[thombergeron]

I'm sorry to have to be pedantic, but the distinction is important. The "both sides do it" argument is lazy and has the effect of pushing the debate further to the right.

In fact, the Financial Services Act of 1999 passed the Senate on May 6 by a vote of 54-44, receiving a single Democratic vote in favor. In fact, the Clinton Administration specifically threatened to veto any version of the legislation that would "scale back minority-lending requirements." A conference committee failed numerous times to reconcile House and Senate versions of the bill. Finally, on November 4, a scaled-back GLB passed the Senate with a vote of 90-8 and in the House by 362–57.

Again, I'm pretty familiar with Rubin's career and would not dispute that he favors scaled-back banking regulations. But you really have to work hard to weave a story in which the financial crisis had its roots in Rubin's machinations as Treasury Sec'y. For one thing, Phil Gramm wrote the bill. Not Robert Rubin, and not Bill Clinton. Arguably, banking deregulation was the central focus of Phil Gramm's Senate career, beginning with his election in 1984. At Gramm's request, the Congressional Research Service published a report examining the implications of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1987.

Further, as you offhandedly acknowledge here, Alan Greenspan's tenure at the Fed played an enormous role in both the pace of banking deregulation and in creating the conditions that resulted in 2008's financial crisis.

So, sure, the regulatory landscape in 2000 probably turned out the way Robert Rubin might have preferred. But if you're going to put up a post about the "roots" of the financial crisis, I'm not sure how you get to Rubin without so much as mentioning Gramm and Greenspan, both of whom played a far bigger role in actually establishing that landscape.

[bluesoul]

why the look?

You probably don't know much about those people I mentioned. You should look them up and see who they are, see what they do, and how they are helping humans become better.

Not knowing who these great people are who are people of reason and what they do, means you have some ignorance about you, sadly.

[EvaCassini]

....

[nysprod]

I'm sorry to have to be pedantic, but the distinction is important. The "both sides do it" argument is lazy and has the effect of pushing the debate further to the right.

It doesn't...or if it does, you're saying I can't have an opinion if it isn't political. In any event, it's important to be neutral when recounting history.

In fact, the Financial Services Act of 1999 passed the Senate on May 6 by a vote of 54-44, receiving a single Democratic vote in favor.

In fact, the Clinton Administration specifically threatened to veto any version of the legislation that would "scale back minority-lending requirements." A conference committee failed numerous times to reconcile House and Senate versions of the bill. Finally, on November 4, a scaled-back GLB passed the Senate with a vote of 90-8 and in the House by 362–57.

Exactly...Clinton's objection had to do with the minority lending requirement, not de-regulation per se. Clinton was all for de-regulation because his top economic guru (Rubin) was all for it.

Again, I'm pretty familiar with Rubin's career and would not dispute that he favors scaled-back banking regulations. But you really have to work hard to weave a story in which the financial crisis had its roots in Rubin's machinations as Treasury Sec'y. For one thing, Phil Gramm wrote the bill. Not Robert Rubin, and not Bill Clinton. Arguably, banking deregulation was the central focus of Phil Gramm's Senate career, beginning with his election in 1984. At Gramm's request, the Congressional Research Service published a report examining the implications of repealing Glass-Steagall in 1987.

What about the part Rubin played when, as Treasury Secretary, he worked (with Greenspan) to prevent derivatives from being regulated? And believing that Rubin had zero to do with influencing the bill is naive...this guy was a full-fledged member of the so-called "Committee To Save The World," along with Greenspan and Summers. The bill would never have seen the light of day without Rubin's approval. It was what the banks and Wall St. wanted all along and when I say "Wall St." I'm talking about Robert Rubin, Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs.

Further, as you offhandedly acknowledge here, Alan Greenspan's tenure at the Fed played an enormous role in both the pace of banking deregulation and in creating the conditions that resulted in 2008's financial crisis.

So, sure, the regulatory landscape in 2000 probably turned out the way Robert Rubin might have preferred. But if you're going to put up a post about the "roots" of the financial crisis, I'm not sure how you get to Rubin without so much as mentioning Gramm and Greenspan, both of whom played a far bigger role in actually establishing that landscape.

I never said Rubin had full responsibility, no one person does, but the regulatory landscape turned out EXACTLY as Rubin wanted it to be. Greenspan's main contribution was to enable the crisis (in no small part) by keeping interest rates too low for too long.

Gramm was a puppet, a tool of the big banks and Wall St. who, finally, had the man they wanted (and needed) exactly in the right place at the right time-Robert Rubin, the architect (and profiteer) of the unregulated market for OTC derivatives and bank de-regulation.

[nysprod]

Robert Rubin, 26 year veteran of Wall St., co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, head of Clinton's economic policy think tank, Treasury Secretary, charter member of the committee to save the world, guardian of the unregulated market for credit derivatives, architect of bank de-regulation and $20M/yr employee of Citi, who when asked by Congress what the hell had happened at the bank to require it to receive the largest taxpayer bail-out in history, basically shrugged his shoulders and said something along the lines of "oh wow, not my department."

[Ben]

Keep in mind, I like Obama, I didn't vote for him, because I don't vote. I would've voted for him if I wanted to, to make sure that that dillfucker Chet Meatly?...damn what was his name...ughh, it's so hard to rememb...Biff Chutney? Spud Nutly?....MITT ROMNEY!! THAT Emmy Award winner!!!....I'd vote for Obama to keep Chuck Steakley out of office. But I knew Obama would've won.

Lesser of two evils, is what I'm sayin....

And, to give credit where credit is due. Obama, albeit has had some goofs ( which Prez hasn't? ) but he's done some good. He's also had the great opportunity to show the American people how infantile, brain-dead, and petty the right side is.

Hey Eva,
I'm not a fan of any politician. Actually, I did like some of what Ron Paul stood for. Again, some of his ideas were good. Not all. But some.
And: it's understandable why 50 percent of the population don't vote.
There's an interesting book called Affluence and Influence. The author, Martin Gilens, points out that roughly 70 percent of the population have no influence on public policy. None. I mean, if we had a functioning democratic system, well, public policy would reflect public opinion.
So, roughly 70 percent have no influence.
The further you go up the income scale, well, you've more influence. And those at the very top -- think the 1 percent of the 1 percent -- get what they want.
Again, we should praise a President, as it were, when he -- or hopefully one day: she -- does good. And criticize him -- or her -- when they commit crimes (meaning: violating the constitution and also we should underscore: nobody is above the law) and commit wrongdoings.
Anyway, our goal should be to have a functioning and meaningful democratic society. Instead of focusing on which corporate servant wins the White House.
Anyway, enough of my rambling -- ha ha!

[BBaggins06]

It is truly ironic that you think going ever deeper into debt is not going to effect the USA's credit rating. At some not very distant point creditors are going to see that they won't ever be paid back.

Take a look at the City of Detroit to see our future.

The credit agencies are one the biggest scams on earth and are just a political tool of the Republican Party.

[mmolotov75]

You post under the premise that transgendered women have equal rights of citizenship already. If they had equal rights that were respected you wouldn't see so many transgendered women harassed, arrested, brutally beaten and murdered. Let's work towards getting transwomen full access to the benefits of citizenship before we start creating what if scenarios of them being stripped further.

[EvaCassini]

"You" post under the premise that transgendered women have equal rights of citizenship already. If they had equal rights that were respected you wouldn't see so many transgendered women harassed, arrested, brutally beaten and murdered. Let's work towards getting transwomen full access to the benefits of citizenship before we start creating what if scenarios of them being stripped further.

Who is "you"? The OP?