Dow Jones Indiustrial

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:I see Jackoff Jones is right on time.  He got his e-mail that somebody replied to his comment and here he is.  The Jackass signed in at:

Dr. Jones   2014-10-01 Today at 9:05 am

Let's see how long it take him to come up with a copy and paste from the internet that he thinks makes sense.  The over under is 1 hour.  I will take the OVER.

In a nutshell.... unregulated credit.  He allowed the banksters to turn our entire financial system into a glorified game of Monopoly.

More than that he played his conservative economic hand and the cards were trumped one after another.  His trickle down tax breaks for the rich fell flat on their face.  He was chomping at the bit to go to war to spur the economy, but unfortunately all the contracts were awarded companies like Cheney's Haliburton and as usual that money didn't trickle down.  Then he played his deregulation card and we got all the easy credit that created a house of cards that he prayed would stand until after he was our of office but even that card fell, and e crashed and burned.

Jeebus. The repeal of Glass-Steagall pretty much accomplished that and Clinton gets the credit for signing that

Not so much.  Clinton told them to loosen theor belt a little.  Not pull their pants to their ankles.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall, which Clinton signed, allowed the financial banks to merge with investment banks creating an internal conflict of interest within the financial institutions. There are examples of financial banks pressuring the credit rating agencies to withhold downgrading the CDO (collective debt obligations) rates until they could dump them on the market and then buy CDS (credit default swaps) with their investment divisions. In effect betting against themselves. More than letting the banks "loosen their belts" a bit I'd say.

Glass-Steagall was already dilapidated in '99.  Clinton just put it out of it's misery.  It had no teeth left, and was no longer doing it's job.  We all know you don't have to be married to someone to hop into bed with them, and the banks had figured that out long before Clinton signed Glass-Steagall out of existence.  Should he have done more to replace it at the time instead?   Most certainly.  But as it was it was being walked all over and no longer served a purpose.

No longer served a purpose? The repeal of G-S brought us the phenomenon of the big banks getting even bigger. Now we are faced with Bank of america, Morgan-chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo controlling half of the mortgages in the country, 2/3 of the credit cards and 2/5 of bank deposits.

Evidently G-S served some purpose because former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker bemoaned it's repeal and has called for the reinstatement of it.

Ummmmm.... No it didn't.  Citigroup formed in '98 while Glass-Steagall was still in effect.  It had been whittled away at for so long it was no longer functional.  There are a lot of calls for it to be reinstated.  Preferably with a little more bite to it this time,  but then we all know who would throw a hissy fit if we had any regulation with any bite to it....

That's because the Citigroup/Travelers Insurance merger was given a waiver and had a couple of years to hold nonconforming insurance activities before coming into violation with Glass-Steagall which was repealed a year later in part due to the Citi/Travelers merger. See tail wagging the dog It must suck to be dumb as you.

Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

Darth Cheney wrote:What amazes me is why anyone even converses with Jackoff Jones. He is one of the dumbest, most ill informed individuals I have ever seen.

"The problem with arguing with idiots is they pull you down to their level and beat you with experience every time".

I completely agree.  I have picked up rocks with a higher IQ than Jackoff Jones.  I am going back to ignoring the dumbass.  I learned a long time ago that you sort of get known by the company you keep.  Anyone who thinks they are having an intelligent dialog with Jackoff Jones needs to think about at what IQ level their dialog is occurring.

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

What's so funny? 

Wow!!  The more you read that article the more you realize how badly Glass-Steagall was gutted in the 80's.....Hmmmm...... 

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

What's so funny? 

Do you even read what you post? Or the articles you post?

"Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation."

From the PBS link, the one sending chills up and down your leg:

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commercial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

The merger was illegal under G-S and Bank Holding Acts. Without the two year waiver given by Greenspan, a former director at JP Morgan and lackey friend of the banks, the deal would have fallen apart. The waiver gave Citigroup enough time to lobby Congress to end G-S. Citigroup alone spent over $100M lobbying Congress not to mention the million$ more spent by JP Morgan and the rest of the banking industry.

While no doubt G-S was hobbled by Greenspan's "creative" re-interpretations of Section 20 of G-S, it was not nor was it ever a legal merger as you've maintained twice in this thread. Without the two year waiver, the Citicorp/Travelers merger was illegal under G-S and the Bank Holding Act. It was all cronyism and inside dealing and it extended to the highest offices in the land including the Chairman of the Fed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the President.

Now go buy another shovel, as you've obviously worn out your old one.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

What's so funny? 

Do you even read what you post? Or the articles you post?

"Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation."

From the PBS link, the one sending chills up and down your leg:

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commercial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

The merger was illegal under G-S and Bank Holding Acts. Without the two year waiver given by Greenspan, a former director at JP Morgan and lackey friend of the banks, the deal would have fallen apart. The waiver gave Citigroup enough time to lobby Congress to end G-S. Citigroup alone spent over $100M lobbying Congress not to mention the million$ more spent by JP Morgan and the rest of the banking industry.

While no doubt G-S was hobbled by Greenspan's "creative" re-interpretations of Section 20 of G-S, it was not nor was it ever a legal merger as you've maintained twice in this thread. Without the two year waiver, the Citicorp/Travelers merger was illegal under G-S and the Bank Holding Act. It was all cronyism and inside dealing and it extended to the highest offices in the land including the Chairman of the Fed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the President.

Now go buy another shovel, as you've obviously worn out your old one.

I have no idea what you are even getting at in this post.  All the straws in the world aren't gong to help you through this one.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

What's so funny? 

Do you even read what you post? Or the articles you post?

"Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation."

From the PBS link, the one sending chills up and down your leg:

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commercial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

The merger was illegal under G-S and Bank Holding Acts. Without the two year waiver given by Greenspan, a former director at JP Morgan and lackey friend of the banks, the deal would have fallen apart. The waiver gave Citigroup enough time to lobby Congress to end G-S. Citigroup alone spent over $100M lobbying Congress not to mention the million$ more spent by JP Morgan and the rest of the banking industry.

While no doubt G-S was hobbled by Greenspan's "creative" re-interpretations of Section 20 of G-S, it was not nor was it ever a legal merger as you've maintained twice in this thread. Without the two year waiver, the Citicorp/Travelers merger was illegal under G-S and the Bank Holding Act. It was all cronyism and inside dealing and it extended to the highest offices in the land including the Chairman of the Fed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the President.

Now go buy another shovel, as you've obviously worn out your old one.

I have no idea what you are even getting at in this post.  All the straws in the world aren't gong to help you through this one.

Jeebus you are a thick one. From the PBS article:

"The merger [Citicorp/Travelers] effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions [Glass-Steagall], scuttle the deal [because it's fcuking illegal in it's current structure under Glass-Steagall], or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law [because it's fcuking illegal in it's current structure under Glass-Steagall]."

The two year waiver only buys Citigroup time to get G-S repealed because the merger is fcuking illegal under the existing regulations.

Forget the shovel, you're gonna need a backhoe.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:Whatever dude... Glass-Steagall had more holes poked in it than the crack whores who will be working the RNC Convention.  Citigroup was just the beginning.

It appears that without repeal of G-S the merger would have failed. Read and weep ... dude.

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998. Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act


Announcement of the Fed's temporary approval of the merger.

http://www.stblaw.com/docs/default-source/cold-fusion-existing-content/publications/pub410.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Why do you suppose they gave them a waiver less than one year before the GLBA was passed?

You tell me so I can tell why you're wrong. This is fun.

Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation.

What's so funny? 

Do you even read what you post? Or the articles you post?

"Because the Federal Reserve had already interpreted the marger as being permicible under Glass-Steagall, long before Clinton had signed anything into law.  One final gaping hole in a piece of long since defunct legislation."

From the PBS link, the one sending chills up and down your leg:

The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commercial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.

The merger was illegal under G-S and Bank Holding Acts. Without the two year waiver given by Greenspan, a former director at JP Morgan and lackey friend of the banks, the deal would have fallen apart. The waiver gave Citigroup enough time to lobby Congress to end G-S. Citigroup alone spent over $100M lobbying Congress not to mention the million$ more spent by JP Morgan and the rest of the banking industry.

While no doubt G-S was hobbled by Greenspan's "creative" re-interpretations of Section 20 of G-S, it was not nor was it ever a legal merger as you've maintained twice in this thread. Without the two year waiver, the Citicorp/Travelers merger was illegal under G-S and the Bank Holding Act. It was all cronyism and inside dealing and it extended to the highest offices in the land including the Chairman of the Fed, the Secretary of the Treasury and the President.

Now go buy another shovel, as you've obviously worn out your old one.

I have no idea what you are even getting at in this post.  All the straws in the world aren't gong to help you through this one.

Jeebus you are a thick one. From the PBS article:

"The merger [Citicorp/Travelers] effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions [Glass-Steagall], scuttle the deal [because it's fcuking illegal in it's current structure under Glass-Steagall], or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law [because it's fcuking illegal in it's current structure under Glass-Steagall]."

The two year waiver only buys Citigroup time to get G-S repealed because the merger is fcuking illegal under the existing regulations.

Forget the shovel, you're gonna need a backhoe.

As I said time and time again, banks had been working their way around this law for years.  Especially after Reagan butchered it in the eighties.  Citibank would have gotten what it wanted anyways regardless of whether Glass-Steagall had been killed.  It least by legalizing these mergers regulators could have a better opportunity to have a handle on what was going on, instead of the back door deals banks had become accustomed to.