This man is an idiot

[Jay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6coIcgdgF5U

That about sums up the mess. These guys "run" the country.

[swgprop]

Re: This man is an idiot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6coIcgdgF5U

That about sums up the mess. These guys "run" the country.

Idiot no. Corrupt, arrogant, self serving yes.

[Jay]

Re: This man is an idiot

Idiot no. Corrupt, arrogant, self serving yes.

Fair enough. I agree 100%. I probably should have said, "this man is a liar" and that brings us into motive.

[stanley2008]

Re: This man is an idiot

I wouldn't give him credit for being smart enough to be corrupt, I really think he's just a clueless idiot.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

Yeah, this certainly proves that ALL the corruption is centered on the Republicans.
The Republicans are to blame for everything that went wrong, and we can weally, weally twust the Democrats.:rolleyes:

If we don't get a Third Party we are doomed.

[Jay]

Re: This man is an idiot

Yeah, this certainly proves that ALL the corruption is centered on the Republicans.
The Republicans are to blame for everything that went wrong, and we can weally, weally twust the Democrats.:rolleyes:

If we don't get a Third Party we are doomed.

Why would we get a third party when the only people who care about or understand this mess are either in control or frequent arcane internet sites? ;):eek:

I'll have a Big Mac please. Gotta get home to Call of Duty 2. Uncle Sam's got my rent covered.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

Why would we get a third party when the only people who care about or understand this mess are either in control or frequent arcane internet sites? ;):eek:

I'll have a Big Mac please. Gotta get home to Call of Duty 2. Uncle Sam's got my rent covered.

Jay, please tell me it isn't this hopeless.

[Jay]

Re: This man is an idiot

Jay, please tell me it isn't this hopeless.

I have changed my mind recently on this. I thought it looked bleak, but I have been hearing a lot of rumblings from people around me. I think they are waking up. I don't know what it will take to get a third party voted in though.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

Yeah, this certainly proves that ALL the corruption is centered on the Republicans.
The Republicans are to blame for everything that went wrong, and we can weally, weally twust the Democrats.:rolleyes:

If we don't get a Third Party we are doomed.

You do understand that in context everything that Frank said was correct, right?

The housing bubble was not caused nor exacerbated by people who put 20% down and qualified for traditional financing, it was almost wholly caused by the idiots that put imaginary equity into incredibly inflated investments urged on by people who said things like "They aren't making any more land." or "Nobody ever went broke investing in Real Estate." Did you somehow miss all of the late night advertisements that blanketed the airways. It wasn't the people Frank is talking about, it was the greedy few.

If you want to establish blame, fine, I am all for it - but to try and lay it where it doesn't belong is a problem worse than what has already occurred.

Let's try to learn from our mistakes, not play political football with them.

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

You do understand that in context everything that Frank said was correct, right?

The housing bubble was not caused nor exacerbated by people who put 20% down and qualified for traditional financing, it was almost wholly caused by the idiots that put imaginary equity into incredibly inflated investments urged on by people who said things like "They aren't making any more land." or "Nobody ever went broke investing in Real Estate." Did you somehow miss all of the late night advertisements that blanketed the airways. It wasn't the people Frank is talking about, it was the greedy few.

If you want to establish blame, fine, I am all for it - but to try and lay it where it doesn't belong is a problem worse than what has already occurred.

Let's try to learn from our mistakes, not play political football with them.

FIRST of all, "Ken", I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Neither am I stupid. And neither do I like your insulting tone.:mad:
And yes, I do have a television with cable, and yes I do remember all those commercials, Angelo Mozillo's suntan included.

No, I do not understand that what Barney Frank said is correct - in ANY context whatsoever. His comment about leverage is a joke - stocks cannot be margined above 50% - while many mortgages issued at the time of his speech (2005) were leveraged in excess of 100% ! ! ! Barney Frank is a lying, self-serving, grossly immoral political whore. (One of his live-in boyfriends ran a brothel from their apartment.) He makes me want to puke.

People like Barney Frank are the cause of most of this country's economic ills, and they may be found in both of the major parties.
The GSEs, the CRA, politicians like Clinton, Rubin, Summers, Bush, Dodd, Frank, Gramm, Delay, and even McCain (remember the "Keating Five"?) and all the others who interfered with the marketplace, not to even mention "Easy Al" Greenspan and "Bubbles Ben" Bernanke, share most of the blame in that they created the very climate that enabled the Wall Street Banksters to manufacture and peddle all this crap.
The Clinton and Bush administrations both relaxed oversight though the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other wilful blindness.
But, you don't suggest that those who took out mortgages based on false and fraudulent information that they provided on the applications are innocent, do you?

What burns my arse is the concerted attempt to blame EVERY PROBLEM on Bush and the Republicans. They certainly share more than 50% of the blame, but letting the Democrats off scott-free insures that the problems will never be fixed.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

FIRST of all, "Ken", I'm not a Republican or a Democrat.

Well, "Raz" I have been unaffiliated since the time I registered to vote in 1973. In that time, I will admit to voting for more Democrats than Republicans, in effect, voting for who I believed the best person for the job would be.

And during the time I lived in Massachusetts I voted for both Barney Frank and William Weld.

Neither am I stupid.

Judging form your posts here, I am inclined to agree with you.

And neither do I like your insulting tone.:mad:

I'm sorry if I you feel I insulted you, it was not my intention. At times the written word is sometimes a poor medium to convey emotion but I will admit that I am one person who believes in speaking directly, or perhaps honestly, as I abhor people who don't say what they mean.

And yes, I do have a television with cable, and yes I do remember all those commercials, Angelo Mozillo's suntan included.

In what level of contempt do you hold those shills responsible for sucking people into the real estate field with promises of making millions without having any money of their own?

No, I do not understand that what Barney Frank said is correct - in ANY context whatsoever.

Excellent, perhaps I'll learn something here.

His comment about leverage is a joke - stocks cannot be margined above 50% - while many mortgages issued at the time of his speech (2005) were leveraged in excess of 100% ! ! !

I just watched the video again and at no time did Frank mention stock margins or percentages of any kind. He did mention that during the dot bomb companies were laying fiber that had no purpose (something I can attest to having run internet networks for a long time) but instead spoke about homes that were owner occupied.

Here is the transcript, unedited.

"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy. Obviously speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems. We are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality, with people building fiber optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level but you're not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push toward home ownership."

Certainly, countless homes were leveraged, in some cases I am aware of 125% - but that is not what he is talking about. The context of Franks' speech was solely directed at the bill which provided funding for low income people. In point of fact, those loans have maintained about the same foreclosure rate as they held before the bubble burst, somewhere equal to the rate of prime customers.

I would like to point out that this collapse has not happened everywhere nor is it uniformly distributed. (I know you understand this)

Barney Frank is a lying, self-serving, grossly immoral political whore. (One of his live-in boyfriends ran a brothel from their apartment.) He makes me want to puke.

I see.

So what you're really saying is that Barney Frank doesn't live up to your moral standards.

Here is where you and I have a very different set of beliefs.

I don't want someone telling me how to live my life, probably just the same as you don't want me or Frank telling you to live how he likes to live. That's the beauty of this country, we all get to make up our own minds within the scope of the law. Many of us refer to this as freedom and I have several relatives who fought for that precious value.

I really don't care if Frank's boyfriend was running a brothel. Personally, I care that our representatives are competent at what they do with our government. If you have some sort of litmus test that our representatives must pass some kind of moral standard, I'm sorry, that's not what this country is based on. You do have the right to apply that test to whomever you choose to vote for. I would suggest that the last decade should have taught us all that the only litmus test to our elected officials we should apply is intelligence, honesty, and competence.

People like Barney Frank are the cause of most of this country's economic ills

I see zero evidence of that assertion. What I do see is a wholly Republican controlled government that mismanaged our country for six years, cut taxes during a time of war (two wars, to be specific) inflated the housing market as it was the only segment of the economy that wasn't sinking and ran the committee where Frank was a member of the minority. I see a repeal of the Glass/Steagall Act as being a serious contributor in this mess and I believe we are both old enough to remember the Savings and Loan Crisis (which occurred under George H. W. Bush's watch) where safeguards were supposed to have been put in place to prevent this looting of the taxpayer's money.

and they may be found in both of the major parties.

Here we do agree.

The GSEs, the CRA, politicians like Clinton, Rubin, Summers, Bush, Dodd, Frank, Gramm, Delay, and even McCain (remember the "Keating Five"?) and all the others who interfered with the marketplace, not to even mention "Easy Al" Greenspan and "Bubbles Ben" Bernanke, share most of the blame in that they created the very climate that enabled the Wall Street Banksters to manufacture and peddle all this crap.

With the exception of the CRA I am in complete agreement with you here, as well. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not one to defend the Democratic Party, in fact, at almost 55 years old I am ashamed to admit that there is no one in government that adequately represents (probably) either of our values.

I will point out that I do not share your opinion of the "Free Market" and that it will correct all that ails us. If you would like to address that topic, I would be thrilled to present my viewpoint and would be anxious to hear your perspective.

The Clinton and Bush administrations both relaxed oversight though the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other wilful blindness.

Agreed - as mentioned above.

But, you don't suggest that those who took out mortgages based on false and fraudulent information that they provided on the applications are innocent, do you?

No, I certainly do not! I also know that those who took out mortgages under the CRA did not commit fraud (not in any meaningful manner) and have not been contributory to this collapse, regardless of what the AM radio talking heads are saying.

And, let me be clear on this point, if someone committed fraud, they should be prosecuted - period.

What burns my arse is the concerted attempt to blame EVERY PROBLEM on Bush and the Republicans. They certainly share more than 50% of the blame, but letting the Democrats off scott-free insures that the problems will never be fixed.

And here again we both agree.

I will return to the post that apparently rubbed you the wrong way. I stated that it is imperative that we assign fault where fault is due. You have mentioned both Frank and the CRA. I am maintaining that the CRA (which is what Frank is specifically talking about in that speech) had nothing to do with the Wall Street crisis. None of the major banks that failed were handling those loans, not a one. And the local banks that did are still doing very well overall as those loans are still performing as expected.

Let me further state, I am not looking to pick a fight with you. In many ways we agree what the problem is and what should be done about it. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to assign blame where it doesn't belong - at least in this instance.

[tombat1913]

Re: This man is an idiot

Fair enough. I agree 100%. I probably should have said, "this man is a liar" and that brings us into motive.

I believe "douchebag" is the best term. Yes, that will do nicely. Perhaps we'll make it a formal title as "Douchebag".

[Raz]

Re: This man is an idiot

Well, "Raz" I have been unaffiliated since the time I registered to vote in 1973. In that time, I will admit to voting for more Democrats than Republicans, in effect, voting for who I believed the best person for the job would be.

And during the time I lived in Massachusetts I voted for both Barney Frank and William Weld.

Both are bad choices - we need to elect Third Party candidates.


Judging form your posts here, I am inclined to agree with you.

Thanks.

[/color]

I'm sorry if I you feel I insulted you, it was not my intention. At times the written word is sometimes a poor medium to convey emotion but I will admit that I am one person who believes in speaking directly, or perhaps honestly, as I abhor people who don't say what they mean.

Apology accepted.



In what level of contempt do you hold those shills responsible for sucking people into the real estate field with promises of making millions without having any money of their own?

I think they're lower than whale dung - and it's on the bottom of the ocean.



Excellent, perhaps I'll learn something here.

[/color]

I just watched the video again and at no time did Frank mention stock margins or percentages of any kind. He did mention that during the dot bomb companies were laying fiber that had no purpose (something I can attest to having run internet networks for a long time) but instead spoke about homes that were owner occupied.

Here is the transcript, unedited.

"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and it's role in the economy. Obviously speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to be missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems. We are talking here about an entity, home ownership, homes, where there is not the degree of leverage that we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot com situation. We had problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality, with people building fiber optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level but you're not going to see a collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. So those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push toward home ownership." I said that his comment about leverage was a joke; the percentages were provided by me as proof that his comment was ridiculous. But Barney was correct in saying that it wasn't the Dot.com situation - it was a hundred times worse!

Certainly, countless homes were leveraged, in some cases I am aware of 125% - but that is not what he is talking about. The context of Franks' speech was solely directed at the bill which provided funding for low income people. In point of fact, those loans have maintained about the same foreclosure rate as they held before the bubble burst, somewhere equal to the rate of prime customers. So you're telling me that these subprime loans have defaulted at rates no worse than prime loans?:confused:

I would like to point out that this collapse has not happened everywhere nor is it uniformly distributed. (I know you understand this) And your point is???



I see.

So what you're really saying is that Barney Frank doesn't live up to your moral standards.

Here is where you and I have a very different set of beliefs.

I don't want someone telling me how to live my life, probably just the same as you don't want me or Frank telling you to live how he likes to live. That's the beauty of this country, we all get to make up our own minds within the scope of the law. Many of us refer to this as freedom and I have several relatives who fought for that precious value.

I really don't care if Frank's boyfriend was running a brothel. Personally, I care that our representatives are competent at what they do with our government. If you have some sort of litmus test that our representatives must pass some kind of moral standard, I'm sorry, that's not what this country is based on. You do have the right to apply that test to whomever you choose to vote for. I would suggest that the last decade should have taught us all that the only litmus test to our elected officials we should apply is intelligence, honesty, and competence. [/color]

I can see that we have totally different world views.

Beginning in the 1960s the dominant social movements in American society have sought to consider sexual matters to be of no consequence to the rest of a person's life. It was a bogus idea then and it is a bogus idea now. A person's sexual mores tend to bleed over into other areas of their life. It is not a partisan issue but one that is basic to a civil society. I don't favor the legislation of proper conduct in the bedroom, but I do believe that America in general was far better off when the overwhelming majority of her citizens still possesed a sense of shame. Barney Frank has none.



I see zero evidence of that assertion. What I do see is a wholly Republican controlled government that mismanaged our country for six years, cut taxes during a time of war (two wars, to be specific) inflated the housing market as it was the only segment of the economy that wasn't sinking and ran the committee where Frank was a member of the minority. I see a repeal of the Glass/Steagall Act as being a serious contributor in this mess and I believe we are both old enough to remember the Savings and Loan Crisis (which occurred under George H. W. Bush's watch) where safeguards were supposed to have been put in place to prevent this looting of the taxpayer's money.

You and I agree on most of what you just said concerning the necessity of government oversite and regulation within the financial sector. What we don't agree on is the extent of direct government participation in the economy.

[/color]

Here we do agree.



With the exception of the CRA I am in complete agreement with you here, as well. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not one to defend the Democratic Party, in fact, at almost 55 years old I am ashamed to admit that there is no one in government that adequately represents (probably) either of our values.

I will point out that I do not share your opinion of the "Free Market" and that it will correct all that ails us. If you would like to address that topic, I would be thrilled to present my viewpoint and would be anxious to hear your perspective.
[/color]

I never said that the "free market" will correct all that ails us. What I WILL say is that it will certainly do a far better job than any level of government at providing real production and real income at a far greater level of efficiency, notwithstanding the need for sufficient regulation to provide a fair and ethical business environment. I'm willing to be informed to the contrary but I've yet to see government at any level produce anything at the efficiency of private enterprise.


Agreed - as mentioned above.



No, I certainly do not! I also know that those who took out mortgages under the CRA did not commit fraud (not in any meaningful manner) and have not been contributory to this collapse, regardless of what the AM radio talking heads are saying.

And, let me be clear on this point, if someone committed fraud, they should be prosecuted - period.



And here again we both agree.

I will return to the post that apparently rubbed you the wrong way. I stated that it is imperative that we assign fault where fault is due. You have mentioned both Frank and the CRA. I am maintaining that the CRA (which is what Frank is specifically talking about in that speech) had nothing to do with the Wall Street crisis. None of the major banks that failed were handling those loans, not a one. And the local banks that did are still doing very well overall as those loans are still performing as expected.

The Community Reinvestment Act was originally an attempt to prevent "redlining". It has since been used to "shakedown" some lenders by pressuring them to make loans that they would not otherwise make. They did so because they wanted to expand their banking presence and had they not played along they would have been denied those opportunities.
I believe that Glass-Steagall was one of the very best and most sensible pieces of legislation in American history, and its repeal was nothing less than insanity. The big banks that you speak of should be busted up just like Ma Bell was back in 1984.

Let me further state, I am not looking to pick a fight with you. In many ways we agree what the problem is and what should be done about it. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to assign blame where it doesn't belong - at least in this instance.

If you're not looking to pick a fight then next time change your tone from accusatory to inquisitive.

Barney Frank is very intelligent. He's also corrupted by the large amount of political contributions he has received from the GSEs. I honestly believe that he shares a large part of the blame for this mess so we will simply continue to disagree.

[centsless]

Re: This man is an idiot

(a)Beginning in the 1960s the dominant social movements in American society have sought to consider sexual matters to be of no consequence to the rest of a person's life... A person's sexual mores tend to bleed over into other areas of their life...America in general was far better off when the overwhelming majority of her citizens still possesed a sense of shame.

So the more people hide themselves & are made ashamed of their natural desires & bodily functions, the more we'll have honesty & transparency in financial constructs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love[/url] ]The term free love has been used since at least the 19th century...reflect(ing) a civil libertarian philosophy that seeks freedom from state regulation and church interference in personal relationships.

[KenD]

Re: This man is an idiot

Edited for brevity, hopefully without changing context...

Originally Posted by KenD "And during the time I lived in Massachusetts I voted for both Barney Frank and William Weld."

Both are bad choices - we need to elect Third Party candidates.

I disagree, but we can agree to disagree. In this last election I voted third party and have done so when I believed the choice was merited. I have always believed in country before party and will continue to vote based on that metric alone.

I said that his comment about leverage was a joke; the percentages were provided by me as proof that his comment was ridiculous. But Barney was correct in saying that it wasn't the Dot.com situation - it was a hundred times worse!

And I will insist that you have taken the quote out of context and when replaced in its original context you are off-base. His speech was focused on the CRA bill and when confined to that subject he is correct. The CRA mandated what used to be considered traditional down payments and debt to income ratios. There was no increase in leverage in any of those loans according to my information. In addition, as I stated before, there are no higher rates of default or foreclosure with the CRA loans than there has been for prime customers.

So you're telling me that these subprime loans have defaulted at rates no worse than prime loans?:confused:

No, I am trying to explain to you that CRA loans were not subprime loans. Please pay attention to the last comment on that page, it is quite telling. If you need other sources to verify this point I am happy to oblige.

Now this goes to why I was somewhat terse with you. If you are going to accuse someone and make claims about their character, it is critical that you have your facts in order.

With that said, I am not suggesting that Barney Frank is either blameless or as pure as the driven snow - but I am categorically stating that the quote that has been circulated in this thread is taken out of context and is presenting an argument that is incorrect.

Beginning in the 1960s the dominant social movements in American society have sought to consider sexual matters to be of no consequence to the rest of a person's life. It was a bogus idea then and it is a bogus idea now. A person's sexual mores tend to bleed over into other areas of their life. It is not a partisan issue but one that is basic to a civil society. I don't favor the legislation of proper conduct in the bedroom, but I do believe that America in general was far better off when the overwhelming majority of her citizens still possesed a sense of shame. Barney Frank has none.

Really? What time was that? The 1960s? Please, I lived through the 1960s and nothing could be farther from the truth. A time where prejudice forced blacks to eat in the White House basement while the white people ate upstairs discussing the strides made in eliminating racial inequality? Where women routinely died due to illegal abortions? Where 57,000 of our own died in a war that we still can't explain why we were there?

How about the 1970s? That was the beginning of the great manufacturing decline while we gave rise to the Yuppies. We went from having the world standard in everything from telecommunication to middle class lifestyle and I completely reject sex as having anything to do with it. I do believe that we would probably agree that upper management of most of this country's corporations were expressly to blame - but they were slaves to their investors. this was a time when short term gains outweighed long term growth - and we are now experiencing what the effect of short term gain meant.

And then we roll into the 1980s - and Ronald Reagan's opening of the deficit spigot. While Jimmy Carter refused to deficit spend Ronald Reagan spent money in a way that must have made LBJ envious. Ironically, President Reagan is almost deified by the lunatic right as being a great leader when the reality is that he is largely to blame for the national debt we have today. This from a man who under his watch had our government sell weapons to a country that had declared war on us and had arguably attacked us on our soil.

How about the 1990s? George H. W. Bush? The savings and Loan Scandal? More record deficit spending?

As far as President Clinton, let's talk about sex and how much that impacted our society. Well, we learned about wagging the dog when our national security was at risk and when the administration tried to take any steps to combat terrorism, we heard about how this was a distraction. In the 1990s we also saw the dot bomb - something all the experts want to talk about - but the dot com crash was nothing compared to the telecommunications bloodbath that destroyed five times as much wealth. I love how we are often treated to how the dot com crash was all Clinton's fault when the underlying cause was the disruptive technology that eviscerated the telecommunications industry. Welcome to the Internet age, where the cost for long distance calls dropped from $.25/minute to not even metered. You better believe that a shift like that is going to spread pain far and wide.

Then we come into this millennium. I am not even going to waste my time discussing what a disaster this last decade has been - but I will reiterate that sex and morals had nothing to do with it - unless you would like to explain what sex has to do with greed and an idea that torture are acceptable American values.

You and I agree on most of what you just said concerning the necessity of government oversite and regulation within the financial sector. What we don't agree on is the extent of direct government participation in the economy.

And yes we agree on the direct damage that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act had in this debacle. Certainly any oversight can be problematic but I do not believe that the free market fixes anything.

I never said that the "free market" will correct all that ails us. What I WILL say is that it will certainly do a far better job than any level of government at providing real production and real income at a far greater level of efficiency, notwithstanding the need for sufficient regulation to provide a fair and ethical business environment.

Ah, so what about when President Reagan dumped billions into the defense industry and quite literally pulled this country out of a recession that had begun at the end of the Nixon Administration? Did government involvement help industry at that time? I can site other examples, if you would like, but I felt that this one example addresses your assertion quite succinctly.

Let me ask you a direct question, can you cite one instance where the free market actually acted as you seem to believe it does. Let me add that I believe the concept of a free market is good, but just like Democracy, Communism, and Socialism, when put in practice in the real world they fail. I believe the underlying problem is that all of the above systems require that people act in both their best interest and the interest of their country - something we both know is not the case.

I'm willing to be informed to the contrary but I've yet to see government at any level produce anything at the efficiency of private enterprise.

The government is not supposed to be as efficient as industry, instead it is supposed to provide services where private industry cannot or will not.

You'd like examples?

Sure, let's dive into a real contentious topic - health care.

Medicare provides service to Americans with between a three and five percent overhead (this is dependent on which source of information one subscribes to) while private industry has an publicly documented twenty-seven percent overhead.

Please explain to me exactly what value we get for that twenty-four percent.

Here's another example.

In Texas there are nine major aquifers that supplies a large percentage of the state's population. In a totally free market society, it would be possible for one company to purchase these aquifers and sell metered water by the drop. Why would we as a country allow this?

One more for you to chew over, if you would indulge me.

Recently, a study by Monsanto showed that GMO corn caused damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs of rats. With the understanding that the end customer is not a customer of Monsanto, how would the market correct this problem without government intervention?

The Community Reinvestment Act was originally an attempt to prevent "redlining". It has since been used to "shakedown" some lenders by pressuring them to make loans that they would not otherwise make. They did so because they wanted to expand their banking presence and had they not played along they would have been denied those opportunities.

I can find zero evidence of this other than the AM Radio big lie machine's rants. If you can provide a citation to your assertion I would be very interested in reading it.

I believe that Glass-Steagall was one of the very best and most sensible pieces of legislation in American history, and its repeal was nothing less than insanity. The big banks that you speak of should be busted up just like Ma Bell was back in 1984.

And here we agree - but I cannot reconcile how you believe that this amount of oversight was correct while also making the assertion that government should largely stay out of regulation. Who determines what is the right amount of influence and what isn't?