I love how you keep bringing up the end of the Glass-Steagall Act and blaming that for what happened in the market. I'm willing to bet that you've never read either the Glass-Steagall or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acts, have you? You're just parroting the socialist talking points again, right? I'm afraid you've been reading too much AlterNet. Just some quick facts for you - and I know how much you hate those: 1. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House. I don't believe the Republican majorities were that big at the time - but I could be wrong. 2. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the bill into law and defends it to this day. 3. The Gramm Act repealed the Glass-Steagall Act from 1933, which prevented commercial and investment banks from merging. It had nothing to do with mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers where most of the problems originated. The Gramm Act actually allowed other banks to buy failing ones - such as the commercial JPMorgan Chase buying the failing investment bank Bear Stearns. It helped prevent a total collapse of banking institutions by allowing them to purchase failed banks instead of the failed banks going under completely. 4. Nearly all of the failed institutions were independent banks and securities firms...so the Gramm Act had no impact on them whatsoever. 5. The failures are a direct result of non-existent oversight by Congress and the SEC of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are also a result of government policies over the past three decades of increased mandated lending to unqualified borrowers and a guarantee by the government that certain institutions would not be allowed to go under. This breeds poor lending practices and poor risk management. If you truly were a "student for history" (and of economics...and of government) you would not be able to ignore these facts - which you have done. Yet for some reason, you accuse other people of ignoring your "facts". There's only one set of real facts, Jim. The rest is just spin and lies. Yes, the Republicans were in control of Congress for a while. But the bill in question was passed by all and signed by Clinton. And the current president pushed for more oversight and warned about the problems - but was met with strong resistance by Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (who is now under investigation). At some point you'll have to stop apologizing for the Democrats just as much as you try to blame Republicans for all the country's problems. *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I haven't heard anything about Obama wanting to tax Internet use. More importantly, this guy's statements don't even make sense. He says Obama will tax people "every time you turn a computer on." That's not even possible. He doesn't even seem to understand how the Internet works. Also, he claims Obama will tax: "all aspect of computer [sic}," "every time you log on" (huh?), and "set up a tax tariff border on all American activity online." He also calls Obama a Marxist, so he doesn't exactly sound like an objective observer. He also says that if Obama is elected, the kind of black people who killed Jennifer Hudson's relatives will be "running amuck" in the streets. WTF?! And he calls Obama "vice president of cancer," etc. etc. This guy is a nut case, plain and simple. I wouldn't believe a word he says. I think this video should have its category changed from Government & Politics to Humor. "he's got to fund his crap somehow or another." -- that's exactly what I'm wondering about "Dr." Manning... wonder if there are any far-right Republicans funding his "ministry"?

Just like with the line item veto passed with a strong push by the Republicans in Congress before Bush the 41st lost to Clinton (when he wasn't "supposed to"), the Republicans have allowed the president to issue "signing statements", which Bush the 43rd has used to unconstitutionally usurp the legislative duties of Congress by deciding which laws he "wants" to allow to apply to him. Bush has spent the last eight years, largely when he had a Republican majority from 2001-2007 in Congress, consolidating power within the Executive Branch--the so-called "Unitary Executive--and ignoring the Constitutional checks and balances in the federal government. Now with the prospect of losing the White House and any hope of being listened to in the Congress, the Republicans are whining and crying "foul" about Obama and the rest of the Democrats having too much power. Such is the substance of your comment and the OP. I know what they are going to serve after John McCain's concession speech Tuesday night. Humble pie. Make sure you get a piece. JOIN XOMBA IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD!

Three years ago, it was October 2005. The elections that gave the Democrats control back in the House and Senate were in November 2006, but they were not put in office until January 2007. It hasn't even been a full two years yet. Funny how you keep giving the Republican Congress a free pass, even though they had control of Congress from January 1995 to January 2007 or 12 years. The problems with Wall Street now can be traced to the end of Glass-Stegall in 1999. Who was in control of Congress in 1999? Not the Democrats. Likewise, you blame a lot of the problems our country now faces on Clinton and give Bush a free pass. You don't look for the root of the problem; everything is the fault of the Democrats. That is your modus operandi. I am enough of a student for history not to ignore facts and let "history be the judge" because such laissez faire attitudes allow for politicians to scrub the truth out of the history books. What do you say George W. Bush's legacy is going to be, eggs? Would you write a biography of him stating in the foreword, chapters, and afterword that everything negative about Bush was a vast left-wing conspiracy by the Democrats? JOIN XOMBA IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD!