I first got wind of this story from an email subscription to the CPA Letter Daily.  They titled it, Former Citigroup CEO calls for return of Glass-Steagall Act.

Sandy Weill, who practically invented the mega-bank when he ran Citigroup in the 1990s, said such banks should be broken up. Weill pushed for a return of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated banks’ deposit-taking operations from trading businesses. “Have banks do something that’s not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that’s not going to be too big too fail,”

The email had several links, Sandy Weill: the architect of megabanks says America should break them up in the UK Telegraph.  This has more than was written in the CPA Letter Daily.

Most of the video of the interview can be seen on the CNBC web site, Weill: Why Big Banks Should Be Broken Up.  I had a hard time getting the video to play, but eventually it did play.  Despite this difficulty, it is worth trying to view the video because you get a better feel for what he really did say than you get from the brief printed quotes in the other  two sources mentioned above.

Even Jon Stewart on The Daily Show remarked (humorously) about Sandy Weill’s interview.

I found it ironic when Weill compared the need of the banks to attract the best and the brightest in order to be competitive to the need for Silicon Valley companies to attract the best and the brightest engineers for them to succeed.  Having spent 40 years in the industry whose United States segment  is now concentrated in Silicon Valley, I observed that the best and the brightest were lured away from Silicon Valley to better paying jobs applying their computer skills on Wall Street.  The ability of Wall Street’s shenanigans to pay engineers better than engineering is part of what is wrong with this country.

Here are President Obama’s words without editorial comment.

I just received an email from Elizabeth Warren explaining that she meant what she said last August.  See the email included below.

This exemplifies what I like about Elizabeth Warren as a politician more than I do some others who are also on my wavelength politically.  She seems to have well thought out reasons for the basic stances that she takes.  Because of this, when she receives some flack about what she says, she can defend what she said and does not feel the need to back away from her principles. (That does not mean I think that she is rigid, nor would I admire her if I thought she were,)

In this ad, Elizabeth Warren asks some very good questions.

We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America? Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better. We can build a foundation for a strong new economy and get people in MA to work right now. I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Let’s go to work.

Why do we have to go to the Wonkette web site to learn about this story, Why Won’t Mitt Romney Root For His Wife’s Dumb Horse?

But you’d think that he’d at least take some time out of hating the 2012 Olympics in general to show a little love for America’s greatest Olympian! We’re of course talking about Rafalca, the dressage horse partly owned by Mitt’s wife Ann. Why is he pretending that he hasn’t spent long evenings out in the stables, feeding Rafalca carrots and pouring out his soul?

You’d think that a reputable newspaper such as The Boston Globe would be all over this story considering some of the other stories that they think are important.

Brian Beutler on Talking Points Memo has a nice analysis, Why The Bush Tax Cut Vote Was So Important.

He concludes with the following paragraph:

Now I don’t think the public hew and cry will be loud enough to force Republicans to move off their position before the election. Maybe if this were another issue — but not taxes. And if Mitt Romney wins in November, then they’ll just extend all the Bush tax cuts anyhow. But if Obama wins, this bill will still be live. And the pressure on the House GOP to relent and pass it during the lame duck will be overwhelming.

He might add that the likelihood of Obama’s reelection may have increased because of this vote and what the campaign will make of it.  The sudden display of a spine might also enliven the President’s supporters.  It certainly looks encouraging to me.

I was once under the impression that if the Republicans ran a reasonable candidate against Obama, that Obama had a chance of losing.   Now that we know that Romney can’t (and sometimes doesn’t even try) to hide who he really is and what he really stands for, I think Obama’s chances are improving.

The Real News has what is now a four part series on The LIBOR Fraud.

Part 1 of the series is Baltimore, Big Banks and a Criminal Conspiracy, an interview with William Black the author of The Best Way To Rob  A Bank Is To Own One.

This LIBOR fraud is a little complicated so it might help you get a handle on all the news stories you will see if you hear this explanation from an expert.

In some ways, Part 2, Will Obama Admin. Prosecute the Big Banks for LIBOR Manipulation?, an interview with Michael Greenberger is even more damaging.

I have not had a chance to view parts 3 and 4 yet.

This USA Today story, Draghi: Central bank can help debt problem; markets cheer, quotes the head of the European Central Bank:

Draghi said the “ECB will do whatever it takes to preserve the euro,” apparently providing the assurance markets needed to rally.

The article also presents this explanation:

Marc Ostwald, an analyst at Monument Securities, welcomed Draghi’s comments that high borrowing rates could hurt the bank’s efforts to control inflation.

I say that if experts need to talk nonsense to justify the correct actions, then let them spout on.

If the ECB’s mandate were restated to one of preventing flation of any kind, de or in, then they would not have to turn language on its head to justifying doing what they need to do.

Talking Points Memo has a transcript of Obama’s Full Remarks On Guns From Urban League Speech. I don’t believe these have been conveniently edited to make it seem that Obama said the opposite of what he actually said.  I think the excerpt below is also faithful to the spirit of what he said.

But what I said in the wake of Tucson was we were going to stay on this, persistently.  So we’ve been able to take some actions on our own, recognizing that it’s not always easy to get things through Congress these days.  The background checks conducted on those looking to purchase firearms are now more thorough and more complete.  Instead of just throwing more money at the problem of violence, the federal government is now in the trenches with communities and schools and law enforcement and faith-based institutions, with outstanding mayors like Mayor Nutter and Mayor Landrieu – recognizing that we are stronger when we work together.

So in cities like New Orleans, we’re partnering with local officials to reduce crime, using best practices.  And in places like Boston and Chicago, we’ve been able to help connect more young people to summer jobs so that they spend less time on the streets.  In cities like Detroit and Salinas, we’re helping communities set up youth prevention and intervention programs that steer young people away from a life of gang violence, and towards the safety and promise of a classroom.

But even though we’ve taken these actions, they’re not enough.  Other steps to reduce violence have been met with opposition in Congress.  This has been true for some time – particularly when it touches on the issues of guns.  And I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms.  And we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation -– that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

By contrast, Mitt Romney seems to have said that he doesn’t think there needs to be any new laws about guns.  As John Stewart pointed out in his commentary, there are people who think we need to pass laws about wearing costumes to movie theaters.  Perhaps Romney thinks this is the way to solve the problem.  Costumes are certainly not protected by the Second Amendment although they might be protected by the First Amendment.

So if we have a complaint about society, would it be better to protect our right to say something before we protect our right to shoot something?

ABC News has the article Senate Passes Cuts for All but Richest Americans. As one comment posted on the article says, a better headline would be the one I chose.

“With the Senate’s vote, the House Republicans are now the only people left in Washington holding hostage the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and nearly every small business owner,” Obama said in a written statement.

On the Republican side, we have the statement:

Republicans say raising taxes on higher earners saps money from business owners who would otherwise create jobs. Democrats say that’s overblown.

To say that the Republican point of view is overblown, is putting it rather mildly. I prefer Harry Reid’s comments:

“Here we go again,” Reid muttered. Some of McConnell’s remarks, he added, were “poppycock.”

It does not make any difference how low you make the taxes, a business owner would be a fool to create more jobs when there aren’t enough customers to keep the existing employees busy.  As self-proclaimed experts on capitalism, how could the Republicans be so dumb as to pretend not to understand this?  In fact, I bet that most Republicans are not that dumb.  They just think the electorate is that dumb.  So far the facts seem to be proving them out on this judgment.