So, please tell us how that deregulation was NOT supported by Democrats-----when this is how the votes to pass it went:

November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. AND Bill Clinton signed it.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

On November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. And Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Now, care to tell us again how the deregulation was only supported by Republicans? We'll wait....

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

STILL waiting.....

November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. That would be pretty much all Dems, right? And Democrat President Bill Clinton signed it into law? Still waiting to hear your explanation how Dems had no part in the deregulation of banks.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I can't believe how stupid so many of you are to sit here going back and forth about which party is to blame when it's clearly obvious to anybody with more than an ounce of objective brains in their head that both parties have their hands in this.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Here's the rest of the story we aren't getting from Democrats right now about the 1999 deregulation:

Up until 1998-1998, deregulation had been fought. It was only when the President---Bill Clinton and his big donor, Sandy Weill got involved did it finally pass.

"...Citicorp's CEO Sandy Weill said he was assured by Federal sources the merger would be approved, which it was in 1998. (Technically the merger was illegal in 1998 as the law wasn't repealed until November, 1999.) Renamed Citigroup after the merger, they have gone on to purchase other investment firms.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (called the Financial Services Modernization Act at the time) repealed 66 years of consumer protections and paved the way for financial mergers and the introduction of new investment products. The Act was written by Republican Senators including Phil Gramm, and early voting was split down party lines until President Clinton forced a rewrite of the bill."

And so.....what did Bill Clinton REQUIRE in order to get Dems to come over to support the bill????

"Clinton vowed to veto the Senate version of the bill unless it was re-written to include "requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit." The new version passed 90-8 in the Senate, passed the House, and Clinton signed it into law. Clinton's required reworking of the bill should be studied closely to see what role, if any, it played in illegal, often racist, subprime loans at higher rates than Caucasian borrowers were offered.

Days before the act passed, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, resigned. As Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin had oversight over enforcing the Glass-Steagall Act. While the resignation at the time looked like Rubin had been against repealing the act, that might not be the actual story. While Rubin had been critical of repealing the Act during the early stages, a year after resigning, Rubin took a cushy job with the newly formed Citigroup as Chairman of the Executive Committee, drawing a salary of $40 million a year, a position Rubin still holds."

So---it was none other than Pres. Bill Clinton and the Democrats who DEMANDED THAT BANKS MAKE LOANS TO MINORITIES, FARMERS, AND OTHERS WHO HAVE HAD LITTLE ACCESS TO CREDIT." That ill-fated provision had to be added to the bill BEFORE Bill Clinton would sign it and before the Dems would come aboard. It's their baby.....therefore the subprime mess and making bad loans began with them.

http://www.ickypeople.com/2008/04/bi...-subprime.html

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

The bill was used as a quid pro quo - a byproduct of a congress that refuses to work together.

Was deregulation allowed to pass by the Democrats? Yes. Guilty. Was it supported? Hell no.

Ownership goes to the brain trust that created it. A brain trust led by the lead economic adviser to John McCain. A man who, as recently as yesterday, could not be ruled out as a candidate for TREASURY SECRETARY in a McCain administration.

Balls in your court. Defend that travesty.

Let me add - you're concentrating on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act alone. Add to that Graham's history of marginalizing the SEC and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and you have overwhelming evidence of guilt/

AMEN! It is way past time to rid the system of the rats that have led us down this path of self destruction.

Both parties do in fact suck.

Another point - or - a question at least.

Is the mortgage meltdown comprised of more 150K loans to minorities, farmers and others who have little access to credit?? or loans to people with plenty of access to credit who take out a 750K loan but can only afford 400K?
If we don't understand the issue - who did what, who's responsible for what - how did this happen - then we are doored to be made into victims again.

Evidence? Look at the language written into the first bailout plan:

Are you kidding me? It just shows to what depths these people - the people who caused this problem to begin with - will sink.

You all are missing the money which is the fuel for all of this crap. Where did it come from? Who is going to put many billions into such high risk investments? Why would they? How did they do it?

The money comes from everyone’s pensions funds. These funds lost huge amounts of money in Clinton's Dot Com Scam. Desperate the pension funds put all of their assets into the hedge funds and told them to make at least a 10% return.

The hedge funds created the bundled mortgages that are now a problem. What really caused this mess what not just the bad paper that Wall Street was dealing in but that the Hedge funds where engaged in naked short selling.

Naked short selling is where a Hedge Fund targets a company shorts its stock and then spreads rumors that the company is having troubles in an attempt to drive down its stocks.

The Hedge funds found the perfect target in those firms that held the sub prime paper. They spread rumors about the inability of these firms to meet the debt obligations and it worked. Companies stopped buying these firms products. Companies stopped lending money to these firms. No Sales, No Capital coming in means that business fails. The Hedge funds where so effective at this naked short selling that they threatened to shut down our financial markets and all lending in this country.

I saw the first public warning about naked short selling about 8 months ago, and I don’t play the markets so I am sure that warnings have been out there for longer then that.

The problems of electronic trading and instant communications need to be addressed. The hedge funds spread these rumors over the internet and on the business news channels.

And of course we need a congress that will actually do something when they are warned about such problems. And congress was warned many times about the effects of naked short selling. This is why short selling was banned both in the US and London last week.