Reply #42: Yeah I've heard that..... [View All]

[DeSwiss]

...half-baked argument before. Not true, although I'm sure a lot of Repukes and DLCers want it to be. Unless you believe mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations had absolutely nothing to do with the economic collapse we're now experiencing.

Events following repeal

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.<15> Elizabeth Warren,<16> author and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009.<17> <18>

The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent. This correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation however, as there are several other significant events that have impacted the sub-prime market during that time. These include the adoption of mark-to-market accounting, implementation of the Basel Accords and the rise of adjustable rate mortgages.<19>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Events_following_repeal">link

- Hell, even http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/president-clinton-i-was-wrong-listen">Slick Willie admits it was a huge mistake. He blames it on listening to Rubin and Summers. I don't understand why anyone would still be trying to defend it.....