The Banking Act of 1933 (Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933) was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation.
Clinton publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant."[6]
Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.[7][8][9] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.[10][11][12][13][14][15] Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass–Steagall Act.[16] Commentators, including the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
Reopening Pandoras box wasnt wise
While the economy and markets experienced a record expansion for most of the rest of Clinton's two-term presidency, at the start of 2000, there were troubling signs. Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned in February 2000 that "we are entering a period of considerable turbulence in financial markets."
Sure enough, the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite stock index and the Dow Jones industrial average both peaked in March 2000. The bursting of the high-tech bubble dragged down the economy and markets through the rest of the year. From September 2000 to January 2001 when Clinton left office, the Nasdaq dropped 46 percent. Even now, in 2012, the Nasdaq has not returned to its 2000 peak. By March 2001, the economy toppled into recession.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57507195/fact-ch...
He had warned of collapses, and tho I blame Clinton, he wasnt the only one, and lessons learned were forgotten.
Now, the difference I see is, blaming the banks and Wall street while at the same time alloking and creating law to allow for such things is phony, made to create another villain, as all constituents are victims.
What it also seems to me is, it was bad politics, and those responsible should be held so, and certainly not ever allowed to champion such a thing as shifting blame that was caused by them to begin with.
If you allow for this, again, please dont vote
In essence, having Clinton prop you up, while at the same time calling Bush out on the economy he inherited is just more of this foolishness.
Obama has blamed the wrong guy for too long, has one of the main culprits, looking lily white, give him support, and the truth is hidden by those that simply wont be fair and look around.
Find those facts, make those assessments, and see who really is to blame here.
Like the debt, it isnt an issue, its always the other guys fault