I guess you could twist Science to mean that... It makes sense, I guess.

Don't see your point.  It would of been overridden in both houses.

A) Actually can't.  Have dysgraphia.  It's like dislexia but involves writing and grammer.

1)  That Depends how you want to define couple of years... though either way, like I said, your wrong on that.

2)  Considering the terms were already used earlier on... abreviations should be common sense?   If two people were talking about the Teengage Mutant Ninja Turtles for the entire thread and someoby mentions the TMNT.... I think it should be common knowledge what is being referred to.

3)  He saved a giant bank to make money.... as would of happened to any giant bank that could of still made money, thanks to the private sector.

Also no... saving banks =/= more competion.   When the big banks were about to fail many smaller banks rose up and started making loans where the big guys couldn't anymore.

After the bailouts of the big banks, these banks were mostly crushed and destroyed.   This led to less competiton.   Which is generally the issue.  When you hold banks as too big to fail... they can go out of their way to crush little banks, create bubbles (see rates that are too good) and can get unfair advantages thanks to regulations compliance.  (They have to spend much less on it.)

Furthermore Dodd-Frank is now about to crush a bunch more smalller banks.  End result is too big to fail will become even bigger and even more unable to fail in the minds of politicians.

Had we let the large banks fail, plenty of smaller banks would of rose up leading to far mroe competition as they each fought to fill their predecessors shoes, run by younger executives who learned from the mistakes of the big banks before them.

Dysgraphia applies only to handwriting. It's a spatial thing. It would not effect your ability to comprehend information, so obviously you are suffering from some other disorder...or you are lying.

Grammar*

1) No. Look it up.
2) The terms were not used prior.
3) Yes. And?

I think I agree with NintendoPie: this seems like statistics, not science. Maybe we just have different definitions of "science"?

Its statistics set against sociology and demography. It's science-esque

Does it have a ring of truthiness?

No it doesn't.

Dysgraphia primarily effects handwriting.  It also effects grammar.

I'm guessing you did a quick incomplete 5 second google search on Dysgraphia.

1) Look what up?  You just admitted you were wrong and that This was legal before the bill passed..  Outside which Wells Fargo offered financial servies in 1986. Banks could offer both investment and savings options WELL before GLB in 1999.  The only things they couldn't do...  Was merge banks. and Insurance underwriting.(Which they mostly still don't.)

So Wells Fargo COULD offer investment banking options... but what it COULDN'T do was buy small investment banks and merge them with wells fargo to do their investing for them.

What your mistakenly thinking of is likely the Citibank/Travelers insurance merger.   Which was illegal until the bill passed... but they let it go, because such legislation was SO overwhelmingly popular it was going to pass.   If Citibank wanted to create a travelers insurance type system from scratch?   Perfectly legal.

When GBL passed, what happened was, the big banks consolidated.  This made them "too big to fail."   That was what is disliked about the GBL.  (to people who know what the GBL did anwyay.)

2) Gramm Leach Bliley most certaintly was.

3) And... nothing.   Saving big banks = less competiton.   Espiecally when you pass laws that require mountains of lawyers to piece through that apply to everyone even though it was only the "too big" banks that were a problem.  (That and CRA exacerbation.  Which is ignored by Democrats though.)

"Affects." Not "effects."

Sorry, had to.

Oh, and for the record, the reason the last bill passed with 90 votes in the senate wasn't because the Democrats saw it was going to happen anwyay and said "oh what the hell."

Politicians care more then that.

It was because in the reconciliation they got rid of something in the Senate bill that called for the lowering of CRA requirements. This was because some people were afraid that all banks would try and meet CRA requirements so they could always be able to merge, therefore flooding the banks with bad loans which could have unintended consequences. (imagine that.)

Kasz, I don't care for anymore of your sentiments as they are quite outlandish and based upon wikipedia entries.

1) No, a couple years prior to the bill passing they allowed it because they passed other legislation allowing it. That Wells Fargo is nonsense.

2) Less Banks = more competition? What? Illogical at best.

@noname Thank you. I generally confuse those two terms. Some day, perhaps I will learn.