What caused the income inequality gap that started in the 70's?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUpride123, May 30, 2015.

Page 11 of 16
  1. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,986
    Likes Received:
    22,994
    So you think there's an "income inequality gap" now?

    Adjusting for inflation, Rockefeller's fortune upon his death in 1937 stood at $336 billion, accounting for more than 1.5% of the national economy, making him the richest person in US history. For Comparison Bill Gates net worth is estimated at a mere $86 Billion. Not only was Rockerfeller IN the upper 1%. He WAS the upper 1.5%

    [​IMG]
     
    Bengal B, Jun 14, 2015
    #101
  2. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Winston1, Jun 16, 2015
    #102
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    An artifact of Bill Clinton! Who are you trying to fool? The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act is an Act of a Republican Congress named after its three Republican sponsors. It may have happened while Clinton was president, but there is no hiding its Republican roots, its Republican sponsors, or its Republican agenda, since it repealed the New-Deal era Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, designed to prevent another 1929-type economic crash.

    The act has many problems blurring the distinctions between commercial banks and investment banks and probably needs re-thinking. It was one of many financial "reforms" that actually allowed banks and holding companies to be reckless with other peoples money. So blaming GLB solely for the financial crisis of 2008 seem like a stretch. If the GLB Act was part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble and repeal would not have helped the situation.
     
    red55, Jun 16, 2015
    #103
  4. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    A couple of points my friend
    1) The Clintons were as much a part of the law as any R. HRC has bragged about it and their role in its passage at least till 2009. In fact the banking industry has been solidly behind HRC and the Ds for years. It's only since Obama turned on them or threatened to that contributions have started to flow in favor of the Rs. I wouldn't be surprised if HRC sucks up a disproportionate share this year. Don't obfuscate things by that tired old song.
    2) I never said anything about 2008 in my post. I just noted it was a rare joining of sides by the Warren wing of the Ds and the more populist wing of the Rs.
    3) in 2008 the commercial banks were in trouble because they purchased the financial instruments created and offered by their investment bank brothers. It was the too, too cozy relationship inside the banks that exposed the commercial side.
    4) Note the article and many others that say the too big to fail won't work any better than what existed in 2008 because they really are too big to fail.
    5) Finally going back to Tafy Hartley (BTW wasn't Taft a R banker?) isn't the answer. There needs to be a significant rewrite of the banking laws based on what is needed and proper today not what a politician calls for.
     
    Winston1, Jun 16, 2015
    #104
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I agree that the bill is not a good one and needs reform. My objection was to your inaccurate and deceptive characterization of it as a "Clinton legacy". Clinton may have signed it into law, but it is a creation of Congress and it was authored by Republicans. Just keeping it honest.
     
    red55, Jun 16, 2015
    #105
  6. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    No you're not. It was supported by Ds and backed by Clinton (Both WHC & HRC). It was bipartisan all the way and to say otherwise is to bend the truth.
     
    Winston1, Jun 16, 2015
    #106
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, then why did you call a bill authored by Republicans "a Clinton legacy". Talk about bending the truth! So now you complain that I don't recognize it as bi-partisan when you did not even pretend to refer to it as bi-partisan. It was a purely partisan shot at Bill Clinton and inaccurate. Just thought I would point that out to everybody.
     
    red55, Jun 16, 2015
    #107
  8. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Yet you persist in blaming the Rs alone. Pot meet kettle. BTW as most actions during a presidency are identified with that president it is his legacy.
     
    Winston1, Jun 16, 2015
    #108
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    You made the comment and got called on it.
     
    red55, Jun 16, 2015
    #109
  10. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    As I said the president gets credit for legislation passed in his term. Best I recall BC was president. Nothing I said was inaccurate. You just can't stand any criticism of your team.
     
    Winston1, Jun 16, 2015
    #110
Page 11 of 16

Share This Page