Bad Day On Wall Street....

[Marc Martyn]

Very well researched Mike. I think that Eric is correct on the Veto:

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leac ... zation_Act
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [3]


After reading it I found it interesting that McCain was recorded as "Not Voting". Once again, his political aspirations got in the way of his fulfilling his elected duties and not voting on what was at the time a historical piece of legislation. He must have been too busy campaigning.

The following link is the Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Need for financial modernization
Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate
February 23, 1999

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... 990223.htm

There were warnings of what this Act could lead to in the future. Below is a New York Times article from Nov. 5, 1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... gewanted=1


Can Wall Street police it self? Not in my opinion.

[joshswrench]

I thought that was the economy leaving in a hand basket... now where was it going?

[Mike Carey]

Mike, well put. I agree wholeheartedly that Clinton was responsible for some heavy hitting policy based on deregulation theory. The FCC took some serious hits around the same time period that affects Emergency responders to this day. I still disagree with the policy, but you have soundly made your point.

My point still stands that you can't pin it on the party, however.

Now bringing it back into the current context, this piece of legislation softened the markets in a detrimental and long-lasting way. Do you think continued degradation of the stop-gaps and protections put in place by acts such as the above will mitigate the problem, as put forth by McCain? His last short comment was reported as noting the way out of this economic crisis was deregulation and tax reduction, said on the stump a day or two ago. Or do you feel that we should be enforcing our antitrust legislation and preventing things like the new bankruptcy bill (also an interesting factor in this financial crisis) which is solely supporting the banks and not the consumer?

E

G -

I'm not that familar enough with the above to make an informed response, and I'm getting ready to go to work...

If history is any indication, whoever we elect will screw it up with whatever policies they enact. It's a wonder this country does as well as it does considering the history of corruption of politicians of both parties. I don't hold much respect for either party. And that's not to say we haven't had some good leaders (I'm not totally cynical).

Marc, as to being veto-proof (your bolded comments) - in my opinion irrelevant. A strong president would stand up for what he believes is right, wouldn't make glowing comments about the bill he just passed, and would have been plenty POed that his Sec. of the Treasury got a Honey of a Deal from Citicorp in his role in getting the Bill passed. As to McCain not voting, again, not relevant considering this is a practice all politicians use. Just check Obama's voting records. (not to be partisan - they both have their warts is all I'm saying).

[Marc Martyn]

If history is any indication, whoever we elect will screw it up with whatever policies they enact. It's a wonder this country does as well as it does considering the history of corruption of politicians of both parties. I don't hold much respect for either party. And that's not to say we haven't had some good leaders (I'm not totally cynical).

Wow, encouraging, Mike.

The nation is going through the most severe financial crisis since 1929, people are losing their jobs and homes and we are in two wars and our President told the nation today "The American people are concerned about the situation in our financial markets and our economy, and I share their concerns,"

I feel so much better about "the situation".

So, who do we vote for on Nov. 4th? Ron Paul, Ralph Nater, Alfred E. Neuman?

[Mike Carey]

I never tell non-relatives who to vote for, LOL.

It's funny, I was listening to Bruce Williams last night on the drive home and he said pretty much the same thing, only with a more positive spin. "Whomever we vote for the republic will survive."

Either way it turns out will be historic. Enjoy the spectacle.

[Anonymous]

Mike, well put. I agree wholeheartedly that Clinton was responsible for some heavy hitting policy based on deregulation theory. The FCC took some serious hits around the same time period that affects Emergency responders to this day. I still disagree with the policy, but you have soundly made your point.

My point still stands that you can't pin it on the party, however.

Now bringing it back into the current context, this piece of legislation softened the markets in a detrimental and long-lasting way. Do you think continued degradation of the stop-gaps and protections put in place by acts such as the above will mitigate the problem, as put forth by McCain? His last short comment was reported as noting the way out of this economic crisis was deregulation and tax reduction, said on the stump a day or two ago. Or do you feel that we should be enforcing our antitrust legislation and preventing things like the new bankruptcy bill (also an interesting factor in this financial crisis) which is solely supporting the banks and not the consumer?

E

Numerically you'd be right, but morally the dems are wrong. If it was such a garbage bill you'd have zero dems voting for and the leader of their party speaking out boldly against it, not in favor of it. If those 138 Dems voted no you'd have 207 no votes. Of course, we both know politicians are "against something before they are for it (isn't that how it goes, LOL) "But this is all just politics.

The November 1999 vote on this in the House shows that 138 Democrats and 205 Republicans voted 'yes'. 69 Democrats, 1 independant, and 16 Republicans voted 'no', and 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans did not vote.

[Drewp]

I know that you have to look to something (in this case a voting record) to base whether or not you support a given candidate, but is it really fair to look back at 1999, the middle of the housing boom and fairly strong economy overall, and fault people for something they voted on that would eventually lead to failure a decade later? That's like saying the 9/11 disaster could have been averted by Bill Clinton if he'd have gone after bin Laden, even though he didn't really have anything to indite him on.

I guess all I'm saying is hindsight is 20-20.

[racfish]

Its a buyers market right now and personally I just got a few stocks that I was waiting for a lil drop in prices.There are always a few comodities that no matter what people buy.
Sodas and cofffees.

[Marc Martyn]

The horses are now out of the barn. It will take quite awhile to sort everything out. But for now, the government (American Taxpayer) is saddled with a very large debt. All this will come home to roost and it is going to very hard on the average citizen. The fat cats will be fine.

[Mike Carey]

I know that you have to look to something (in this case a voting record) to base whether or not you support a given candidate, but is it really fair to look back at 1999, the middle of the housing boom and fairly strong economy overall, and fault people for something they voted on that would eventually lead to failure a decade later? That's like saying the 9/11 disaster could have been averted by Bill Clinton if he'd have gone after bin Laden, even though he didn't really have anything to indite him on.

I guess all I'm saying is hindsight is 20-20.

I agree, but that is the way the game seems to be played. I'd much rather hear concrete ideas and proposals for solutions than the back and forth blame game. And the way bills are created means you can vote for something in a bill that you like, having to live wth something you don't like. Then we get to hear about how "Senator X supported blaa blaa blaa" when really it was a part of a larger bill and just a tagged on item. sigh.

[Marc Martyn]

Obviously, the problem is spreading across the world. Wednesday morning The Nikkei average plunged 9.4 percent on Wednesday, its biggest one-day drop since the 1987

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081008/business ... .html?.v=1

I think that it is going to be some time before this fever breaks.:pale:

[Mike Carey]

I don't even bother to look at my 401k accounts. What would be the point?

[Marc Martyn]

Mike, it is great that you can just put it aside at your age and not worry about it. Sure, in about 15 years things will recover and rebound. However, there are millions of Americans that are in a much different position. I being one of them.

MILWAUKEE — Jean Knoll figures that at age 60, she doesn’t have 15 years for her investments to recover from a Wall Street meltdown. So she hopes for a rebound.

“It’s always scary to watch your savings that you’ve worked so hard for go down, but what else can you do?” said Knoll, who works as a retail clerk in downtown Hartford, Wis. “I figure I’ll have to work into my 70s now.”...............more>

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/st ... isis.html/

[kutthroatkilla]

Man I feel for those who are my pop's age -- around 59, want to retire and can't. He'll work until he's 75 at this rate. However, I am glad I have age on my side. Plus there are some nice large cap value plays to be had...John Deere being one of them - I wouldn't buy quite yet, but it's getting close, anything under $35.00 is great. One buddy of mine has been up 15% so far YTD in this down market. It takes a lot of time, reading 10K reports, etc, but where there is a will, there is definately a way. I look at it as a huge opportunity to get in around when things get a bit worse. But we'll know when that happens after a pre-spike, then lower, then up for good. It's certainly a painful thing to watch for those that are much older than just 22. Hedgies and shorts are just having their ways right now and this is a fairly significant recession.

[Marc Martyn]

Man I feel for those who are my pop's age -- around 59, want to retire and can't. He'll work until he's 75 at this rate.

Provided his health holds up and he a capable of working. Then there is the employer also. Many businesses want to send the old horse out the door and bring in a young colt.

There are only so many positions open for door greeters at Walmart..........