Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

applegrove

(118,682 posts)
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 10:41 PM Jul 2015

Warren, McCain introduce bill to bring back Glass-Steagall

Warren, McCain introduce bill to bring back Glass-Steagall

By Kevin Cirilli at The Hill

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247093-warren-mccain-introduce-bill-to-bring-back-glass-steagall

"SNIP..............



Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are reintroducing legislation to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, which would force big banks to split their investment and commercial banking practices.

Glass-Steagall was first passed in 1933 but repealed during the Clinton administration, leading many progressives to argue that it contributed to the 2008 financial collapse.

Warren and McCain, along with their cosponsors, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said in a statement that the legislation would make big banks that are "too big to fail" smaller and safer and minimize the likelihood of a government bailout.

The bill, which they first introduced in the last Congress, would separate traditional banking with checking and savings accounts from financial institutions that offer services such as investment banking, which are riskier.

..............SNIP"
116 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren, McCain introduce bill to bring back Glass-Steagall (Original Post) applegrove Jul 2015 OP
Behind the Iraq War, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably the most damaging things Quixote1818 Jul 2015 #1
I'm thinking the birth of Dick Cheney should be right up there. Seriously, I don't disagree rhett o rick Jul 2015 #48
You are wrong! Thankfully. . . Springslips Jul 2015 #67
I missed the 30 year limit. I hope he lives long enough to understand that he is a war criminal. nm rhett o rick Jul 2015 #71
You have to have some semblence of empathy and humanity. AngryDem001 Jul 2015 #90
I believe he is a classic sociopath. Just sayin'. nm rhett o rick Jul 2015 #95
Never happen. He's corporate Borg hifiguy Jul 2015 #98
Fantastic! RiverLover Jul 2015 #2
You're welcome. applegrove Jul 2015 #3
Good idea but this should have been tied to the bailouts.....Revive Glass-Steagall or no bailout. yourout Jul 2015 #4
Fingers crossed. nt valerief Jul 2015 #5
Bipartisan too. PowerToThePeople Jul 2015 #6
Is it just me or has McCain suddenly become sensible and cooperative as of late? Frustratedlady Jul 2015 #7
He has been screaming for war all last week. He may be right on Glass Stegal, but he is still still_one Jul 2015 #8
He has an election coming up. n/t KarenS Jul 2015 #12
And Arizona is not as red as it used to be... n/t Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #17
az election are rigged..we do not actually know how red it is questionseverything Jul 2015 #66
Shouldn't this be brought before some investigative body, then? Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #73
activists have been in court for 7 years over this case questionseverything Jul 2015 #74
Thanks for that. eom Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #76
Actually McCain probably wants this Kevin from WI Jul 2015 #24
As twisted as that is, seems like a solid theory to me. SomeGuyInEagan Jul 2015 #68
That makes perfect sense in a dazzlingly perverse and sick way. nt hifiguy Jul 2015 #99
Nope, he's watching his ass. There's a challenger back in Arizona. calimary Jul 2015 #37
Wouldn't it be sweet if he lost to a woman? Super sweet! Frustratedlady Jul 2015 #52
Money is no problem for him jmowreader Jul 2015 #86
He's scared. ChazInAz Jul 2015 #56
He's always been like this Reter Jul 2015 #59
McCain has always had isolated moments of seeming sense . . . markpkessinger Jul 2015 #65
True warmfuzzy Jul 2015 #93
Okay, we worked out butts off trying to stop the TPA. Let's see if we can win this one. Time to jwirr Jul 2015 #9
THIS^^^^^^ calimary Jul 2015 #39
most excellent. nt navarth Jul 2015 #10
I will contact my Congress people and let them know I expect them to support this bill. mountain grammy Jul 2015 #11
This is GREAT. Get ready to call your Senators and Representative on the hour and voice your support PatrickforO Jul 2015 #13
Sen. Sanders supports this! grahamhgreen Jul 2015 #14
great news. wonder if the TPP will over rule this tho nt msongs Jul 2015 #15
Superb! Sherman A1 Jul 2015 #16
Would this be the same Glass Steagall Le Taz Hot Jul 2015 #18
Yip, Bill CLINTON. n/t UTUSN Jul 2015 #31
Bill now works at UBS with Phil Gramm, who as Senator spearheaded deregulation. Octafish Jul 2015 #33
"It's all legal like." Le Taz Hot Jul 2015 #34
Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever. Octafish Jul 2015 #36
Well, you've always been one of DU's smartest Le Taz Hot Jul 2015 #40
Coming from you, that means a lot. Octafish Jul 2015 #43
As always, Octofish, a must-read if you REALLY want to know annabanana Jul 2015 #47
^^^this^^^ L0oniX Jul 2015 #49
Thank you for this!!! hifiguy Jul 2015 #57
ROFL malaise Jul 2015 #44
Wealth Management Octafish Jul 2015 #45
Love you back malaise Jul 2015 #89
Obama will be joining soon, I'd bet. nt awoke_in_2003 Jul 2015 #60
Republican congress Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2015 #87
This is great and the timing couldn't be better for the Democratic candidates ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #19
Does Hillary support reinstatement of Glass Steagall? LondonReign2 Jul 2015 #69
She is on record supportin ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #78
I would really like to see a statement from her that she wants Glass-Steagall rhett o rick Jul 2015 #96
Considering that the Dons of Goldman were big in pushing for hifiguy Jul 2015 #100
I guess we will hear all about it during the debates, huh? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #105
In other words you don't have any links to her stating she wants to go back to Glass- rhett o rick Jul 2015 #110
No ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #111
Supporting "more strenuous banking regulation" is very different LondonReign2 Jul 2015 #114
I realize ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #116
''Progressives''? Ex-CITIGROUP CEO Blames Glass-Steagall Repeal for Financial Crisis Octafish Jul 2015 #20
The old S&L scandal Kevin from WI Jul 2015 #27
S&Ls were the blueprint for ripping off the banks via deregulation. Octafish Jul 2015 #32
Once in a blue moon, McCain gets it right... Gumboot Jul 2015 #21
Outdamnedstanding JackInGreen Jul 2015 #22
It doesnt matter shaayecanaan Jul 2015 #23
Excellent. Get this done! Enthusiast Jul 2015 #25
Good move, I wonder why this has taken so long, good for Warren and McCain. Maybe we can finally Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #26
Because it's entirely symbolic Recursion Jul 2015 #55
History says otherwise. hifiguy Jul 2015 #101
O'Malley welcomes the development bigtree Jul 2015 #28
I posted down below, but I am VERY happy for this. nt Raine1967 Jul 2015 #107
It would be great win to get this back into law davidpdx Jul 2015 #29
Well done, Senator Warren and Senator McCain emulatorloo Jul 2015 #30
Cannot help but think McCain is just horny for Sen. Warren. Darb Jul 2015 #35
Excellent news. nt brer cat Jul 2015 #38
Would be excellent if it can get passed. TM99 Jul 2015 #41
Bravo! lovemydog Jul 2015 #42
John has learned the inevitable HoosierCowboy Jul 2015 #46
I wrote my senator (Casey - PA) to intoduce the exact same bill. Silencio! EndElectoral Jul 2015 #50
Pleasantly surprised that McCain is in on this. City Lights Jul 2015 #51
He wants some of his maverick moniker back nolabels Jul 2015 #77
K&R Stellar Jul 2015 #53
Doesn't really matter, but bringing it back wouldn't be actively harmful Recursion Jul 2015 #54
. Rex Jul 2015 #70
Let me guess: you think this will "keep banks from gambling with your money" Recursion Jul 2015 #75
"Politics makes strange bedfellows..." malthaussen Jul 2015 #58
OMG, a rare McCain sanity moment! lark Jul 2015 #61
A Good Deed From Grampy McCain colsohlibgal Jul 2015 #62
McCain? John McCain? KamaAina Jul 2015 #63
credit where credit is due SCantiGOP Jul 2015 #64
This will piss off all the right people so I am all for it! Rex Jul 2015 #72
Great News. Hopefully it can pass in spite of the corporatists. Akicita Jul 2015 #79
good- its a start Marrah_G Jul 2015 #80
nice but CTBlueboy Jul 2015 #81
He may yet live to redeem himself libodem Jul 2015 #82
Warren makes sense, but McCain? What's up his sleeve? Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #83
McCain needs to polish up the ol' Legacy, which suffered major damage from bad decisions. Raster Jul 2015 #84
By beginning to undo the Reagan Revolution? Maybe backlash against the gop bigwigs? Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #85
You are giving him way too much credit. And it wasn't his decision to bring Palin onboard. rhett o rick Jul 2015 #97
I disagree. If John McCain had said: "NO Sarah Palin" her candidacy would not have moved forward. Raster Jul 2015 #102
Some things a majority of the US Congress sulphurdunn Jul 2015 #88
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jul 2015 #91
It's about time! warmfuzzy Jul 2015 #92
Interesting since his friend Phil Grahm helped make the repeal possible still_one Jul 2015 #94
The repeal of Glass-Steagall along with "Don't ask and Don't tell"& "Defense of Marriage" awake Jul 2015 #103
This is a very simple issue for politicians, and for The People to judge politicians BY nikto Jul 2015 #104
I gotta big feeling I am gonna get slammed for asking this: Why isn't Sanders Raine1967 Jul 2015 #106
Looks good, no reason it shouldn't be asked or you'd be slammed. elleng Jul 2015 #108
Thanks, I still do not know why his name is isn't on the legislation. Raine1967 Jul 2015 #109
McCain MFrohike Jul 2015 #112
...so it can go to the house to die quietly 0rganism Jul 2015 #113
Good! UCmeNdc Jul 2015 #115

Quixote1818

(28,946 posts)
1. Behind the Iraq War, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was probably the most damaging things
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 10:50 PM
Jul 2015

done to this country in the past 30 years.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
48. I'm thinking the birth of Dick Cheney should be right up there. Seriously, I don't disagree
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:11 AM
Jul 2015

with you, but might add the SCOTUS appointment of Bush to the presidency. To me that was the signal that our democracy was dead.

Springslips

(533 posts)
67. You are wrong! Thankfully. . .
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 02:51 PM
Jul 2015

Cheney is older than 30; I doubt the nation could survive with him another 40-50 years.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
7. Is it just me or has McCain suddenly become sensible and cooperative as of late?
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:21 PM
Jul 2015

I haven't seen him screaming, "Get off my grass!" lately. He did or said something the other day that was out of character for him. Forget what it was.

Maybe they changed his meds or his good friend Lindsay is too busy for him.

questionseverything

(9,656 posts)
66. az election are rigged..we do not actually know how red it is
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 02:22 PM
Jul 2015
http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/

we only know the results "fed" to us

this is the best documented case of election fraud in the country
 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
73. Shouldn't this be brought before some investigative body, then?
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:27 PM
Jul 2015

Or are we now so corrupt that election-rigging is just par for the course when the GOP does it in Arizona?

Kevin from WI

(184 posts)
24. Actually McCain probably wants this
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:22 AM
Jul 2015

Because he knows that there won't be enough money to fight endless wars if the economy crashes again. He needs the banking system to be stable so he can get back to his favorite hobby of bombing brown people.

SomeGuyInEagan

(1,515 posts)
68. As twisted as that is, seems like a solid theory to me.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:15 PM
Jul 2015

Sadly, it simply would not surprise me if that was an underlying reason that he is behind it. Can't kill if you can't buy bullets or bombs.

Frustratedlady

(16,254 posts)
52. Wouldn't it be sweet if he lost to a woman? Super sweet!
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:51 AM
Jul 2015

I should think by now, McCain would have siphoned off enough money to live nicely the rest of his life. Maybe Lindsay will make him VP if he wins the nomination. What a nightmare that would be.

jmowreader

(50,559 posts)
86. Money is no problem for him
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:30 PM
Jul 2015

His wife owns the biggest beer distributorship in Arizona. This is the real reason he ran with Palin in 2008 - evangelicals love her, and they threatened to stay home and throw the whole downticket to the Democrats if he didn't give in to them.

I'd put this down as atoning for being in the Keating Five.

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
59. He's always been like this
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:28 PM
Jul 2015

He just loves war so much sometimes we don't see the good side of him. He's their Joe Liberman.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
9. Okay, we worked out butts off trying to stop the TPA. Let's see if we can win this one. Time to
Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:51 PM
Jul 2015

call our legislators again.

calimary

(81,310 posts)
39. THIS^^^^^^
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:13 AM
Jul 2015

Updated TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers conveniently located in my sig line below.

PatrickforO

(14,576 posts)
13. This is GREAT. Get ready to call your Senators and Representative on the hour and voice your support
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 01:34 AM
Jul 2015

of the new bill! I will be doing the same thing.

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
18. Would this be the same Glass Steagall
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:26 AM
Jul 2015

that Bill CLINTON signed out of existence? Let's see, I believe that helped the BANKERS, didn't it? I believe they have several PAC's ready to donate to various campaigns on both sides (with one exception). Maybe someone should follow the money and see what their bribes, er, I mean, incentives have bought them already.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
33. Bill now works at UBS with Phil Gramm, who as Senator spearheaded deregulation.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:52 AM
Jul 2015

Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

It's all legal like.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
36. Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:10 AM
Jul 2015

What I wrote at the time -- September 2008, Le Taz Hot:

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

The Sting

In the best rip-off, the mark never knows that he or she was set up for fleecing.
In the case of the great financial meltdown of 2008, the victim is the U.S. taxpayer.
Going by the lack of analysis in Corporate McPravda, We the People are in for a royal fleecing.



Don’t just take my word about the current situation between giant criminality and the politically connected.

[font color="green"][font size="5"]You see, there is evidence of conspiracy. An honest FBI agent warned us in 2004 about the coming financial meltdown and the powers-that-be stiffed him, too.[/font size][/font color]

The story’s below. And it’s not fiction. It is true to life.



The Set-Up

You don’t have to be a fan of Paul Newman or Robert Redford to smell a BFEE rat. The oily critter’s name is Gramm. Phil Gramm. He helped Ronald Reagan push through his trickle-down fiscal policy and later helped de-regulate the nation's once-healthy Saving & Loan industry. We all know how well that worked out: Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nation’s S&Ls for Power and Profit.

In 1999, then-super conservative Texas U.S. Senator Gramm helped pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. This law allowed banks to act like investment houses. Using federally-guaranteed savings accounts, banks now could make risky commercial and real-estate loans.

The law should’ve been called the Gramm-Lansky Act. To those who gave a damn, it was obviously a potential disaster. During the bill’s debate, the specter of a “taxpayer bail-out” was raised by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, warning about what had happened to the deregulated S&Ls.

Gramm wasn’t alone on the deregulation bandwagon. The law passed, IIRC, like 89-9. More than a few of my own Democratic faves went along with this deregulation, “get-government-off-the-back-of-business” law.

Today we have their love child, MOAB—for the Mother Of All Bailouts.


The Mark

In a sting, someone has to supply the money to be ripped off. Crooks call that person the mark or target or mope. In the present case, that’s the U.S. taxpayer.

Today’s financial crisis seems like a re-run of what happened to the Savings & Loans industry in the late 1980s. Well it is a lot like what happened to the S&Ls. Then, as now, it’s the U.S. taxpayer who gets to pick up the tab for someone else’s party.

Don’t worry, U.S. taxpayer. You’re getting something (among several things) for your $700 billion. You’re getting all the bad mortgage-based paper on almost all of Wall Street. I’d rather have penny stocks, because if there ever was something of negative value it’s the complicated notes and derivatives based on this mortgage debt.



When it comes to Bush economic policy, left holding the bag are We the People, er, Mopes. Don’t worry, it can’t get worse. As St. Ronnie would say, “Well. Yes.” You see, what the bag U.S. taxpayers hold is less than empty. It’s filled with bad debt.


The Mastermind

Chief economist amongst these merry band of thieves and traitors was one Phil Gramm (once a conservative Democrat and then an ultraconservative Republican-Taxus). An economist by training and reputation, Gramm was one of the guiding lights of Reaganomics, the cut taxes, domestic spending, and regulations while raising defense-spending to new heights. In sum, it was a fiscal policy to enrich friends – especially the kind connected to the BFEE.




Foreclosure Phil

Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.


David Corn
MotherJones.com
May 28, 2008

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.

Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they audited—at one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firms—setting off a wave of merger mania.

But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.

It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

Subprime 1-2-3

Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worry—neither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. —Casey Miner

CONTINUED…

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclo...




A fine mind for modern Bushonomics. Kill the middle class. Then, rob from the poor to give to the rich.

The Mentor



Anyone who’s ever heard him talk knows that Gramm must’ve learned all this stuff from somebody. He could never think it all up on his own. He had to have help. That’s where Meyer Lansky, the man who brought modern finance to the Mafia, comes in.



Money Laundering

Answers.com


EXCERPT...

History

Modern development


The act of "money laundering" was not invented during the Prohibition era in the United States, but many techniques were developed and refined then. Many methods were devised to disguise the origins of money generated by the sale of then-illegal alcoholic beverages. Following Al Capone's 1931 conviction for tax evasion, mobster Meyer Lansky transferred funds from Florida "carpet joints" (small casinos) to accounts overseas. After the 1934 Swiss Banking Act, which created the principle of bank secrecy, Meyer Lansky bought a Swiss bank to which he would transfer his illegal funds through a complex system of shell companies, holding companies, and offshore accounts.(1)

The term "money laundering" does not derive, as is often said, from Al Capone having used laundromats to hide ill-gotten gains. It was Meyer Lansky who perfected money laundering's older brother, "capital flight," transferring his funds to Switzerland and other offshore places. The first reference to the term "money laundering" itself actually appears during the Watergate scandal. US President Richard Nixon's "Committee to Re-elect the President" moved illegal campaign contributions to Mexico, then brought the money back through a company in Miami. It was Britain's Guardian newspaper that coined the term, referring to the process as "laundering.&quot 3)


Process

Money laundering is often described as occurring in three stages: placement, layering, and integration.(3)

Placement: refers to the initial point of entry for funds derived from criminal activities.

Layering: refers to the creation of complex networks of transactions which attempt to obscure the link between the initial entry point, and the end of the laundering cycle.

Integration: refers to the return of funds to the legitimate economy for later extraction.

However, The Anti Money Laundering Network recommends the terms

Hide: to reflect the fact that cash is often introduced to the economy via commercial concerns which may knowingly or not knowingly be part of the laundering scheme, and it is these which ultimately prove to be the interface between the criminal and the financial sector

Move: clearly explains that the money launderer uses transfers, sales and purchase of assets, and changes the shape and size of the lump of money so as to obfuscate the trail between money and crime or money and criminal.

Invest: the criminal spends the money: he/she may invest it in assets, or in his/her lifestyle.

CONTINUED...

http://www.answers.com/topic/money-laundering



The great journalist Lucy Komisar has shone a big light on the subject:



Offshore Banking

The U.S.A.’s Secret Threat


Lucy Komisar
The Blacklisted Journalist
June 1, 2003

EXCERPT…

In 1932, mobster Meyer Lansky took money from New Orleans slot machines and shifted it to accounts overseas. The Swiss secrecy law two years later assured him of G-man-proof banking. Later, he bought a Swiss bank and for years deposited his Havana casino take in Miami accounts, then wired the funds to Switzerland via a network of shell and holding companies and offshore accounts, some of them in banks whose officials knew very well they were working for criminals. By the 1950s, Lansky was using the system for cash from the heroin trade.

Today, offshore is where most of the world's drug money is laundered, estimated at up to $500 billion a year, more than the total income of the world's poorest 20 percent. Add the proceeds of tax evasion and the figure skyrockets to $1 trillion. Another few hundred billion come from fraud and corruption.

Lansky laundered money so he could pay taxes and legitimate his spoils. About half the users of offshore have opposite goals. As hotel owner and tax cheat Leona Helmsley said---according to her former housekeeper during Helmsley's trial for tax evasion---"Only the little people pay taxes." Rich individuals and corporations avoid taxes through complex, accountant-aided schemes that routinely use offshore accounts and companies to hide income and manufacture deductions.

The impact is massive. The IRS estimates that taxpayers fail to pay in excess of $100 billion in taxes annually due on income from legal sources. The General Accounting Office says that American wage-earners report 97 percent of their wages, while self-employed persons report just 11 percent of theirs. Each year between 1989 and 1995, a majority of corporations, both foreign- and U.S.-controlled, paid no U.S. income tax. European governments are fighting the same problem. The situation is even worse in developing countries.

The issue surfaces in the press when an accounting scam is so outrageous that it strains credulity. Take the case of Stanley Works, which announced a "move" of its headquarters-on paper-from New Britain, Connecticut, to Bermuda and of its imaginary management to Barbados. Though its building and staff would actually stay put, manufacturing hammers and wrenches, Stanley Works would no longer pay taxes on profits from international trade. The Securities and Exchange Commission, run by Harvey Pitt---an attorney who for more than twenty years represented the top accounting and Wall Street firms he was regulating---accepted the pretense as legal.

"The whole business is a sham," fumed New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who more than any other U.S. law enforcer has attacked the offshore system. "The headquarters will be in a country where that company is not permitted to do business. They're saying a company is managed in Barbados when there's one meeting there a year. In the prospectus, they say legally controlled and managed in Barbados. If they took out the word legally, it would be a fraud. But Barbadian law says it's legal, so it's legal." The conceit apparently also persuaded the Securities and Exchange Commission.

CONTINUED…

http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column92e.html



Socialize the risk for Wall Street. Privatize the loss to Uncle Sam’s nieces and nephews. Congratulations, Dear Reader! Now you know as much as Phil Gramm.

The Diversion

Still, a global financial meltdown sounds like something bad. Making things worse, we’re hearing that Uncle Sam is broke! Flat busted. Tapped out.

That’s odd, though. We the People see the Treasury being emptied with tax breaks for the wealthy and checks to the companies they own that make money off of war. Want to know how to make a buck these days? Invest in the likes of Halliburton and Northrup Grumman. Anything in the warmongering business connected to Bush and his cronies will weather the downturn or depression.

The Wall Street Journal -- a paper owned and operated by Fox News’ head, Rupert Murdoch – was very quick to promote the crisis, as DUer JustPlainKathy observed. The paper was even faster to pounce on a solution: What’s needed is a safety net for banks. And quick as a wink, they found the answer!
Only the U.S. taxpayer has the wherewithal to prevent the collapse of the global financial system -- a global economic meltdown that would freeze up credit and investment and expansion and prosperity and a return to the Great Depression. Who can be against that?

Oh. Kay. Sounds about right – Rupert the Alien agreeing with what Leona Helmsley said: “Only the little people pay taxes.”



Gramm and McCain also are in favor of privatization. How nice is that?

The Getaway

George Walker Bush and his right-wing pals feel they can get away with this, their latest rip-off the American taxpayers. Who can blame them? When compared to their clear record of incompetence, lies, fraud, theft, mass-murder, warmongering and treason, what’s a few trillion dollar rip-off?



Still, it's weird how they act.
They must really think they’ll be welcomed with open arms in Paraguay and Dubai and Switzerland.
Going by the welcome the world gave the Shah of Iran, they’re in for a big surprise.

The FBI Guy

Don’t say we weren’t warned. An intrepid FBI agent with something sorely lacking in the rest of the Bush administration, integrity, blew the whistle on the bank thing…



FBI saw threat of mortgage crisis

A top official warned of widening loan fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Long before the mortgage crisis began rocking Main Street and Wall Street, a top FBI official made a chilling, if little-noticed, prediction: The booming mortgage business, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, was starting to attract shady operators and billions in losses were possible.

"It has the potential to be an epidemic," Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of criminal investigations, told reporters in September 2004. But, he added reassuringly, the FBI was on the case. "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis," he said.

Today, the damage from the global mortgage meltdown has more than matched that of the savings-and-loan bailouts of the 1980s and early 1990s. By some estimates, it has made that costly debacle look like chump change. But it's also clear that the FBI failed to avert a problem it had accurately forecast.

Banks and brokerages have written down more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments in the last year or so as homeowner defaults leaped and weakness in the real estate market spread.

SNIP…

Most observers have declared the mess a gross failure of regulation. To be sure, in the run-up to the crisis, market-oriented federal regulators bragged about their hands-off treatment of banks and other savings institutions and their executives. But it wasn't just regulators who were looking the other way. The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, are supposed to act as the cops on the beat for potentially illegal activities by bankers and others. But they were focused on national security and other priorities, and paid scant attention to white-collar crimes that may have contributed to the lending and securities debacle.

Now that the problems are out in the open, the government's response strikes some veteran regulators as too little, too late.

Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006, declined to comment for this article.

But sources familiar with the FBI budget process, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the growing fraud problem, say that he and other FBI criminal investigators sought additional assistance to take on the mortgage scoundrels.

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

CONTINUED…

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgagefraud25-2008aug25,0,6946937.story



We were warned and nothing happened.

Repeat: And nothing happened.

They must think We the People are really stupid. Are we supposed to believe that all that $700 billion in bad debt just happened? Where did all that money go? Who got all the money?

Meyer Lansky moved the Mafia’s money from the Cuban casinos to Switzerland. He did so by buying a bank in Miami. Phil Gramm seems to have done the same thing as vice-chairman of UBS, except the amounts are in the billions.

Who cares? He’s almost gone? Nope. That money still exists somewhere. I have a pretty good idea of where it might be. And George Bush and his cronies are poised to get away with a whole lot of loot.


Who Should Pay for the Bailout

If you are fortunate enough to be one, good luck American taxpayer! You’re in for a royal fleecing. Once the interest is figured into the bailout, we’re looking at a couple of trill.

The people who should pay for the bailout aren’t the American people. That distinction should go to the crooks who stole it -- friends of Gramm like John McCain and George Bush and the rest of the Raygunomix crowd of snake-oil salesmen. For them, the Bush administration -- and a good chunk of time since Ronald Reagan -- has not been a disaster. It’s been a cash cow.

The above was posted on DU on Sept. 21, 2008. (Check out the responses, lots of info from DUers.) What's changed since then? Nothing near what We the People interested in Justice would have hoped for, certainly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4055207

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
40. Well, you've always been one of DU's smartest
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:15 AM
Jul 2015

people. I've always admired your tenacity to gather evidence and then present it.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
43. Coming from you, that means a lot.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:53 AM
Jul 2015

Truth is: I'm no smarter than anybody, just older -- and I used to be a newspaper reporter.

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
47. As always, Octofish, a must-read if you REALLY want to know
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:10 AM
Jul 2015

what's what and how it got that way . . .

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
19. This is great and the timing couldn't be better for the Democratic candidates ...
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:25 AM
Jul 2015

I just hope it can be dragged out until the General Election debates ... since all of the Democratic candidates support the re-instatement and none of the republican's 27 candidates have even spoken to it.

ETA: Sitting Democrats can help their case/cause by introducing similar progressive-type legislation between now and the General Election debates.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
69. Does Hillary support reinstatement of Glass Steagall?
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:19 PM
Jul 2015

I made an admittedly very hasty search and didn't find that, can you provide a link? Thank you

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
78. She is on record supportin ...
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 04:05 PM
Jul 2015

More strenuous banking regulation.

I'm on my phone so I can't drop a link, showing what that would look like.

Further, do you really think she would oppose reinstatement
?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
96. I would really like to see a statement from her that she wants Glass-Steagall
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:07 PM
Jul 2015

brought back or at least that she wants to see investment banking separated from personal banking.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
100. Considering that the Dons of Goldman were big in pushing for
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:18 PM
Jul 2015

its repeal, I wouldn't be holding my breath, sir.

The Commission gets what it wants from the people who work for it, don't we Mr Luciano?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
110. In other words you don't have any links to her stating she wants to go back to Glass-
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:46 PM
Jul 2015

Steagall? She makes a good speech on how she wants to help the 99% but I can't find where she is willing to raise taxes on the wealthy. In her last speech she said she wants all Americans to do better. Sounds a lot like "rising tides lifts all boats". That's fine for those with boats. She said she wants to reward those companies that invest for a long term gain. That of course means at the taxpayer expense. I would rather she said she would like to punish those companies that move jobs out of the country. She said she wants to subsidize housing for firefighters, etc. That sounds good but unless we change the tax system, it means that the 99% are subsidizing each other.

And re the "debates", I don't trust the DNC to be fair to challengers to their chosen candidate.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
111. No ...
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:52 PM
Jul 2015

I found a lot about more banking regulation; but nothing specific to GS.

But again, I can't she her coming out in opposition to reinstatement. So I say, go sitting Democrats ... more progressive legislation to force issues, please.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
114. Supporting "more strenuous banking regulation" is very different
Thu Jul 9, 2015, 10:47 AM
Jul 2015

than supporting reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. "More strenuous regulation" is completely generic and ultimately means nothing without specifics, which Hillary as a rule of thumb doesn't like to give.

Do I think she would oppose reinstatement? Very much so, that's why I asked for a link. Given that her husband signed the repeal and that her biggest donors would very much be against a reinstatement, I very much doubt she would be in favor.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
116. I realize ...
Thu Jul 9, 2015, 11:11 AM
Jul 2015

Supporting "more strenuous banking regulation" is very different than supporting reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

I suspect that EVERY Democratic candidate will get behind reinstatement, and just about whatever progressive legislation introduced, however vaguely; and, will be full-throated in support of any progressive that makes it out of committee.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
20. ''Progressives''? Ex-CITIGROUP CEO Blames Glass-Steagall Repeal for Financial Crisis
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:37 AM
Jul 2015

"Yeah. See. Move on!"



From the "DU Told You So Department"...



Parsons Blames Glass-Steagall Repeal for Crisis

By Kim Chipman and Christine Harper - Apr 19, 2012 8:48 PM ET
Bloomberg

Richard Parsons, speaking two days after ending his 16-year tenure on the board of Citigroup Inc. (C) and a predecessor, said the financial crisis was partly caused by a regulatory change that permitted the company’s creation.

The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated banks from investment banks and insurers made the business more complicated, Parsons said yesterday at a Rockefeller Foundation event in Washington. He served as chairman of Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank by assets, from 2009 until handing off the role to Michael O’Neill at the April 17 annual meeting.

SNIP...

U.S. Bailout

“People have a sort of a notion that ‘well, we can decide that’s too big to manage,’” he said. “But it got that way because there was a market need and institutions find and follow the needs of the marketplace. So what we have to do is we have to learn how to improve our ability to manage it and manage it more effectively.”

Citigroup, which took the most government aid of any U.S. bank during the financial crisis, has lost 86 percent of its value in the past four years, twice as much as the 24-company KBW Bank Index. (BKX) Most shareholders voted this week against the bank’s compensation plan, which awarded Pandit about $15 million in total pay for 2011, when the shares fell 44 percent.

CONTINUED...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/parsons-blames-glass-steagall-repeal-for-crisis.html



I knew Warren would do something to stop the crooks! McCain seems to think hiding in plain sight will protect his historic role in financial deregulation.

Kevin from WI

(184 posts)
27. The old S&L scandal
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:36 AM
Jul 2015

From the good old days of the Republican Party. Such found memories... that they wish we would forget. Thanks for posting and the accompanying link.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
32. S&Ls were the blueprint for ripping off the banks via deregulation.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:50 AM
Jul 2015

Worked like a multi-trillion dollar charm, too. Ask William K. Black who as a federal regulator -- an attorney and forensic economist -- helped send thousands of S&L crooks to prison. Strangely, to those interested in Justice, he was ignored by the past and current administrations.

Black wrote "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One." He also coined the term "Control Fraud" to describe how a financial institution's CEOs and COOs could lead banks to financial ruin, but personally profit Big Time.



Remember, this (warning) was written nearly 30 years ago. We have known for a very long time that modern executive compensation plus deregulation created an intensely criminogenic environment that could lead bank CEOs leading accounting control frauds to make epic amounts of bad loans in order to optimize fictional reported income and the CEO’s compensation.

SOURCE: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/02/amazing-vanishing-act-accounting.html



PS: You are most welcome, Kevin from WI! The only way we'll restore Justice is to demand it.


Gumboot

(531 posts)
21. Once in a blue moon, McCain gets it right...
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:50 AM
Jul 2015

... but more often than not, it's facepalm-a-rama.

Kudos where it's due, though. Let's hope this one gets signed through ASAP.


shaayecanaan

(6,068 posts)
23. It doesnt matter
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:09 AM
Jul 2015

the problem wasn't the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the problem was that a bunch of banks were writing mortgages with their eyes shut.

Glass Steagall prevented retail banks from running investment banks on the side. It still does, largely. What Bill Clinton did was allow vanilla banks and investment banks to be held by the one holding company.

The banks that ran into trouble in 2008 (Bear Sterns, Lehmann, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) were all banks that were fully entitled to issue residential loans, with or without Glass Steagall. Even if Glass Steagall hadnt been repealed, they still would have hit the wall.

The problem is inherent in banking itself. No one gives a shit which bank that they get their loan from, one bank's money is as good as another.

There are only three ways, therefore, in which a bank can effectively compete or expand its market share. One is by assuming monopoly power, by buying competitors or becoming effectively the only game in town.

Two, by reducing interest rates on loans, to offer people the cheapest deal and attract them away from the competition.

Three, by reducing lending standards, to be able to offer loans to more people.

Number two and number three inevitably lead to ruin (specifically, number two led to the savings and loans crisis during the 80s, and the relaxation of lending standards had a big impact in 2008).

The problem with American banks is not that they are too big, but that they are too small and numerous. They therefore have to enter into genuine competition with each other. Competition leads to winners and losers. Losers typically go broke. Banks going broke is not a good thing.

The countries that have avoided banking collapses are typically those dominated by huge oligopolies (Canada, Australia) that make reliable profits because they prevent genuine competition.

The preferable alternative is that the banking sector is nationalised by the government. Given that the government effectively assumes the risks of the banks anyway, this is really just cutting out the middleman.



Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
26. Good move, I wonder why this has taken so long, good for Warren and McCain. Maybe we can finally
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:36 AM
Jul 2015

get Congress to accept their responsibilities. Hopefully this will not get derailed.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
55. Because it's entirely symbolic
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:13 PM
Jul 2015

The repeal had nothing to do with the 2008 crisis and bringing it back won't prevent another one so nobody really bothered until now. It's a decent symbol but that's all it is. (It doesn't "keep banks from gambling with your money" or whatever this week's catch phrase is.)

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
101. History says otherwise.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:24 PM
Jul 2015

If the banksters can't gamble with federally guaranteed deposits, you can bet your ass there will be a dramatic reduction in gambling. When Glass-Steagall was around, banks were FORBIDDEN from even affiliating with securites companies. And it is the merger of highly risky and speculative investment banking with "normal" banks that take deposits that was the touchstone for the meltdown. It never could happened if Glass-Steagall had still been in force and enforced.

I'd read some Nomi Prins if I were you.

bigtree

(85,998 posts)
28. O'Malley welcomes the development
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:38 AM
Jul 2015
Martin O'Malley ‏@MartinOMalley 19h19 hours ago

Thanks @SenWarren @SenJohnMccain @SenatorCantwell @SenAngusKing for reintroducing Glass-Steagall—it's essential in preventing another crash.


Martin O'Malley ‏@MartinOMalley 19h19 hours ago
We must prevent another Wall Street meltdown from bringing down hard-working families. http://omly.us/1HKE5Wb
 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
35. Cannot help but think McCain is just horny for Sen. Warren.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:54 AM
Jul 2015

Wouldn't be the first time he made political choices with his little head.

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
41. Would be excellent if it can get passed.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:21 AM
Jul 2015

McCain may be a hawk but he has often been rather moderate on other issues.

I respect him for doing this with Warren.

HoosierCowboy

(561 posts)
46. John has learned the inevitable
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:01 AM
Jul 2015

You can't have war on someone else's dime and win. Now the financial system must be rehabilitated before war can continue.
Simple really...

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
77. He wants some of his maverick moniker back
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 04:03 PM
Jul 2015

and nowadays an (r) gets a couple of free passes here and there just because most know those little blurbs never really go anywhere other then just touching base and creating talking points

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
54. Doesn't really matter, but bringing it back wouldn't be actively harmful
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:11 PM
Jul 2015

At least it's something, even if it's something entirely symbolic and pointless

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
75. Let me guess: you think this will "keep banks from gambling with your money"
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:47 PM
Jul 2015

or prevent them from being too big to fail.

malthaussen

(17,202 posts)
58. "Politics makes strange bedfellows..."
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 12:24 PM
Jul 2015

Although, aargh, now I can't scrub from my mind the image of McCain and Warren in bed together...

-- Mal

colsohlibgal

(5,275 posts)
62. A Good Deed From Grampy McCain
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 01:01 PM
Jul 2015

The rest of the republican party is such a clown posse enabling McCain to look almost sane compared to them.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
63. McCain? John McCain?
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 01:03 PM
Jul 2015

Can't be. It must be that guy Edwin McCain from South Carolina who had a hit in the wake of Hootie and the Blowfish's success.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
72. This will piss off all the right people so I am all for it!
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 03:20 PM
Jul 2015

I love watching the Right go over a cliff over regulations! Poor babies!

 

CTBlueboy

(154 posts)
81. nice but
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 04:30 PM
Jul 2015

we have Democrats in the senate that will oppose it Sen. Chris Murphy of CT , Sen. Schumer of NY just names off the top of my head

Raster

(20,998 posts)
84. McCain needs to polish up the ol' Legacy, which suffered major damage from bad decisions.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 05:05 PM
Jul 2015

The Palin Affair.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
97. You are giving him way too much credit. And it wasn't his decision to bring Palin onboard.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 09:09 PM
Jul 2015

He didn't even like her.

Raster

(20,998 posts)
102. I disagree. If John McCain had said: "NO Sarah Palin" her candidacy would not have moved forward.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:04 PM
Jul 2015

It does not matter who brought her or who did or did not vet her, it was ultimately the decision of the McCain campaign and he is John McCain. He was "the decider."

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
88. Some things a majority of the US Congress
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 06:12 PM
Jul 2015

will never willingly vote for: reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, reducing financial aid to Israel, public financing of federal elections, gun control laws, and significant cuts to the MIC budget.

still_one

(92,217 posts)
94. Interesting since his friend Phil Grahm helped make the repeal possible
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:43 PM
Jul 2015

It would be good for sure, but not sure they have the votes, especially in the house

awake

(3,226 posts)
103. The repeal of Glass-Steagall along with "Don't ask and Don't tell"& "Defense of Marriage"
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:10 PM
Jul 2015

are some of the worst things Bill Clinton signed, this is why I am suspect of Hillary and what she might do. The Clinton's are "Republican light" working for Walmart, Tayson food and Wall-street Banksters.

 

nikto

(3,284 posts)
104. This is a very simple issue for politicians, and for The People to judge politicians BY
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:22 PM
Jul 2015
Very simple:

If a politician is against Glass-Steagall protections being re-instated, he/she is a corrupt, bought
little tool of bankster$ and investor-pig$.



If a politician fully supports re-instatemnent of Glass-Steagall protections, he/she is
a sincere servant-of-the-people, and is trying to do what's right for the country on this issue.







That's all.

The distinction is that simple.


This is one of the easiest and clearest issues in recent American History, along with (opposing) TPP.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
106. I gotta big feeling I am gonna get slammed for asking this: Why isn't Sanders
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 10:56 PM
Jul 2015

a part of reintroducing this legislation? It's a serious question. Has he ever tried to reintroduce this with other members of the senate? Right now, Sanders is the only one of the three leading candidates running for office that is currently in the senate.

I would LOVE to see it brought back. I know that Clinton has not called for it to be brought back.

I also know that O'Malley has been calling for it to be reinstated for a long time. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/21/1372360/-Martin-O-Malley-Reinstate-Glass-Steagall-Break-up-the-Banks

Finally, most importantly, O'Malley calls or a 5 point approach to enforce real accountability amongst the banks and their leaders:
1) Replace CEOs at banks who are repeat offenders

2) Appoint people to positions like AG and SEC Chairman who will aggressively prosecute bank criminals

3) Force the banks who break the law to admit their actions and face consequences.

4) Banks must bear the full weight of financial penalties and stop them from deducting their penalties from their taxes

5) Establish a Three Strikes policy - repeat offenders must get their right to operate revoked.

O'Malley concludes with what we most progressives already know:

It’s time to put the national interest before the interests of Wall Street.
The future of our economy — and America’s middle class — depends on it.


I want Glass-Steagall brought back.

elleng

(130,967 posts)
108. Looks good, no reason it shouldn't be asked or you'd be slammed.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:02 PM
Jul 2015

If he HAS, you'll be so informed.

Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
109. Thanks, I still do not know why his name is isn't on the legislation.
Wed Jul 8, 2015, 11:13 PM
Jul 2015

Shouldn't he be working with Warren on this?

Isn't this the very thing he's running for/about?

I know that if it ever reaches the senate floor he will vote *yes* but I really wish he was the one who introduced it. Sanders does not introduce legislation that is passed. What these two senators are doing is wonderful. It's bipartisan and important…

anyway, as I linked above, we have a candidate that would be more than willing too sign this into law because he already proposed it as part of his policy platform.

Thank you senators Warren and McCain!

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
112. McCain
Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:00 AM
Jul 2015

I'm surprised to see him as a sponsor, but not supporting it. For all his faults and we all know they're many, he does have a bit of consistency when it comes to supporting a certain bedrock of federal regulation. He opposed Cheney's gutting of New Deal energy/utility regulation back in 2006, which is something the president can't say.

I'm no fan of McCain but I believe it's best to cheer them when they're right and give them hell when they're wrong.

0rganism

(23,957 posts)
113. ...so it can go to the house to die quietly
Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:42 AM
Jul 2015

much as the GOP hates it, the quickest way to get it out of sight again is pass it through the senate and bury it in a house subcommittee.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Warren, McCain introduce ...