It was a Republican sponsored bill which the Dems in congress mostly opposed. You can't really blame Clinton for signing it into law as the economy was cranking at the time and he wasn't about to get in the way of industry.

There's not much difference between Clinton and Bush on policy here, although it was under Bush that the sub-prime lending really took off. Some of this could have been just timing though.

-spence

ok- so economy good - regulation bad
Economy bad - regulation good.

thanks spence, makes sense to me now

You know...I think they always get some mid-western guys to spell the names...who obviously have no clue as to how they;re really pronounced.;)

No, it's called context.

-spence

Actually, the Dems in congress did NOT mostly oppose Gramm-Leach-Bliley. They, along with the Republicans, voted, OVERWHELMLINGLY for it. The total, combined vote of both Congressional Houses was 450 for and 64 against. A small minority of both Dems and Repubs voted nay.

That's simply not true. Democrats only supported the bill after the Republicans made many concessions. The bill had all Republican sponsors and the initial version only recieved a single Dem vote in the Senate.

But as I've said all along, this is a bi-partisan issue. The simple fact remains that it was a contributing factor among many.

-spence

So your saying they were overwhelmingly against it before they were overwhelmingly for it.

I didn't mention socialism here. I asked if government might not be at "the root of the problem." Your response is that in the past "government didn't allow commercial, investment banks and insurance houses to mingle." And then, in a bi-partisan move, government DID allow it. (BTW, Joe Biden voted for Gramm-Leach-Blilely.) Government didn't allow, Government did allow, Government regulated, Government didn't regulate . . . Government, Government, Government. And your description of the mess is that it is too obfuscated to tell a bad loan from a good. That there is no chicken or egg dispute. That everybody is to blame.

The point is, all along, that there is plenty of blame and you can't take one element out of context and try to find fault.

Ultimately it's a systems problem.

-spence

Ultimately, all problems are systemic. Each system requires its own cure. If your body, a unique system of myriad integral parts suffers a broken tibia, you don't go to a cancer specialist. If it is cold, you put on a coat. So to what system are you referring? If GM has problems, it goes to the government? If Citibank has problems, it goes to the government? Such a system!!

There is a cultural, generational divide here. If you were to study every American generation from 1776 to now you would, surely find much in common. But, I believe, you would find evolving differences in what each generation expects from government. I would guess you'd find a large shift in expectations post Roosevelt. I believe the founders suscribed to the notion that government governs best when it governs least. I believe that, probably inevitably, generations gradually expected more from government, and we may be at the tipping point, if it hasn't already tipped, where we believe government does best when it governs most. It seems to have pervaded almost every aspect of our lives, with BENEVOLENT INTENTIONS. And we cannot resist the helping hand.

The divide here is, in one way, between those who believe the constitution to be a plain spoken, immutable, foundation for freedom from government, a charter of negative liberties if you must, and those who believe it is living, breathing, to be interpreted, changed to suit new times, even discarded when defunct. In another way, the divide is between those who were born into a generation that has evolved way past the 1776ers into one that, a priori, accepts government's hegemony in our lives, and those who still honor the original resistance.

And we talk past each other.

Makes sense Flip flop, I mean Kerry is a democrat..

No, but you can go to a hospital and chances are get the care you need.

The system in question is the one that ultimately enables the American way of life. The simple fact is that Government and industry are woven together, and while this relationship is problematic at times, it has led to incredible prosperity and is seen as a beacon for the new global economy.

I'd note that under normal operations, business tends to work its problems out. We are not now operating within normal parameters. Is it possible that government intervention might exacerbate the same issues that led to the problem in the first place? Perhaps, but it's also possible to borrow because of the need to reduce debt...

I agree...the current generation is looking for a lot from our Government, honesty, integrity, transparancy etc...

To be honest I don't know anyone, including some very liberal friends, who are hoping the Government will be intruding more into our lives.

Our system was designed to be flexible. There is a Judicial Branch because they understood that context would require interpretation. They split the Executive and Legislative Branches because they didn't want another King.

I have a bit of a Federalist streak in me because I do believe there's value in testing everything with the wisdom of our founders. They had an understanding of human behavior that is nealy universal, and perhaps not without equal in modern times.

That being said, the Constitution is a work in progress and there are really very few pure followers left anymore. Most Libertarians are given no more than novelty regard in modern politics.

-spence

Funny, I didn't see those as Spanish speaking areas at first glance, I saw them as areas where retired pensioners tend to go in their golden years.
But I suppose you're right, it's a Latin problem...It's always them never us, is it. Until it happens to us, then it's still their fault..

Great thread, full of truths and truthiness, facts and obfuscations, yin and yang, and contradictory agreement!

:hidin:

If a hospital is NECESSARY, by all means, go.

How interwoven have business and government become, and how more so WILL they become? The deeper the weave, the more problematic?

I wouldn't think that wanting "honesty, integrity, transparency, etc." from government is a new desire, but what ALL generations expected.

HOPING that the government will not be intruding in our lives and unconsciously voting in ways that facilitates it, is part of the generational shift that has occured.

The Judicial Branch is in danger of losing the original perspective through appointments of those who accept the evolved notion that the Constitution is a work in progress and it is their prerogative to act not as judges of constitutional intent, but as LEGISLATORS . . . TO ACT AS THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.

The fact that Libertarians are given no more than novely status shows how far we have come.

Deregulation in the name of less Government influence on industry has more often than not led to more problems for the average person. Sure we hear all the promises of lower rates, cheaper goods and more options for the consumer. The reality tends to be just the opposite.

Certainly regulation can go to far, but the notion of removing Government and leting market forces take over would destroy our way of life as we know it. Sure, it makes for a nice talking point come election time, but that's about it.

This is a muddy topic and I don't necessarily agree with your premise. When courts deem matters such as State limitations on civil unions or gay marriage to be in violation of the Constution (often State), they are deemed to be "activists" primarily because there's a large idiological block who don't agree with their findings regardless of the Constitution's intent.

The amount of legislation via the courts (ala Roe) is really very, very small, and had we not have had liberal courts...we'd still have segregation etc...The Constitution shouldn't be taken lightly, but it's also not perfect.

-spence

Lower prices and more options are not usually due to government influence but to private innovation and competition. The reality of government overregulation tends to raise prices and decrease options--e.g. price controls. And who is talking about removing government? Obviously, without government, there would be no market, indeed, no constitution--just chaos. Government is as natural as two people getting along. Human cooperation IS govenment. It's the UBERgovernment that over-restricts how we can get along.

The Constitution doesn't INTEND. It SAYS, and specifically what government CANNOT do, not what it can. If the PEOPLE, by election or amendment choose, so be it . . . the judges must abide that. But THEY are NOT the ones to choose.