The Broken Promise of Social Security
- Thread starter TheBrutalTruth
- Start date
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Well Med the Enslaver? Have you finally came up with a plausible explanation on how the new Social Security of stealing from one generation to support the last is not slavery?
Note, it's not just about my generation be enslaved, it's now about the generation after that, and the next one after that ad infinitum.
Do you really support slavery?
You accuse people of having answers, but I think that puts everyone that has a possible answer a foot up on people like you who are willing to just blindly follow others that demonstrate a lack of answers and just have hollow rhetoric about Change, and Reform.
We, my generation, are the one's that have to deal with the screw ups of yours.
Maybe you think everyone should just be blindless sheeple zeigheiling the government.
Note, it's not just about my generation be enslaved, it's now about the generation after that, and the next one after that ad infinitum.
Do you really support slavery?
You accuse people of having answers, but I think that puts everyone that has a possible answer a foot up on people like you who are willing to just blindly follow others that demonstrate a lack of answers and just have hollow rhetoric about Change, and Reform.
We, my generation, are the one's that have to deal with the screw ups of yours.
Maybe you think everyone should just be blindless sheeple zeigheiling the government.
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
Every single sentence is exactly right on.
tipsgnob
New Member
and I guess Phil Gramm didn't have anything to do with the collpase?
In 1933, a few years following the stock market crash, Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, in hopes that regulating banks will help prevent market instability, particularly amongst Wall Street banks. The purpose of the act is to separate commercial banks that focus on consumers from investment banks, which deal with speculative trading and mergers.
The Glass-Steagall Act provided the proper oversight and entity separation that would prohibit banks and other financial companies from merging into giant trusts (conflict of interests) -- giant trusts or corporations being more powerful, naturally, and having the seemingly limitless capital to lobby their corporate interests, however, with a very myopic scope (particularly when it comes to factoring in potential losses -- most banks, as seen in contemporary times, chose not to anticipate losses in the mortgage market; they presumed home prices would continue to appreciate).
In 1999, former Senator Phil Gramm (who is, incidentally, Senator John McCain's economic adviser and cochairs his presidential campaign) set out to completely gut the Glass-Steagall Act, and did so successfully, replacing most of its components with the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act: allowing commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers to merge (which would have violated antitrust laws under Glass-Steagall). Sen. Gramm was the driving force behind the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as he had received over $4.6 million from the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate donations) over the previous decade, and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act. Everything in between Glass-Steagall and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (i.e. Savings and Loan crisis/bust) was, in large part, the incubation period for what would take place over the nine years that would follow the passage of Gramm's Act: an experiment in deregulation.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
The prime cause was the subprime mortgages, thus the subprime mortgage crisis...
Of course, Glass Steagall certainly did lead to the creation of these entites that are "too big too fail."
Which I believe means they should be investigated under anti-trust law, and divided into competing companies in regions where they hold dominance. Or just arbitrarily split them up into five or six competing forms. Definitely would create a lot more competition in retail bankstering, err banking.
Too big too fail, too big to exist.
Needless to say, even if that doesn't happen (which is more of a nuclear option) they should have been allowed to sink or swim on their own. Nature, we are oft reminded, abhors a vacuum, I have no doubt, with that maxim, that the smaller better managed banks would have eagerly fought each to gain market share. The ensuing competition would probably have sped our recovery as instead of some banking giants leaching resources from the local economies and onto Wall Street, you'd have local banking chains keeping those resources local, thus helping the communities that the giant banks failed.