Good first step. However if I'm not mistaken congress has also voted to repeal Dodd-Frank. We can't allow that. We need regulations because you can't count on corporation and banks to do the right thing. They have to be forced.

I'm a financial planner and spent ten years prior to that working as an equity research analyst for global diversified financial services firms. Our incentive structure is designed to promote theft and corruption rather than sound financial management. The boom-bust cycle was mitigated significantly for the better part of a century because of Glass-Steagall and other legislation. Your constituents understand economics and history, and we lived through the S&L crisis and and subsequent cycles. Reinstatement of tight controls is for the greater good.

I do not want the financial institutions to be as vulnerable as they were before. Those regulations need to be reinstated. It is the responsible action that must be taken!

This is absolutely the most effective and efficient way to address the too big to fail problem. First of all,banks today are not only too big to fail but they are also too big to regulate. Retail depositors and taxpayers should not have to involuntarily take up the risk of exotic investment products. Secondly, by limiting investment options for commercial banks, small and mid sized businesses will get more attention and capital allocated to them.

A good step towards breaking up too big too fail financial corporations.

Absolutely! All The Republican Congress has done is roll back the clock to pre 2007. Again the Republicans think that if they try the same thing again they will get a different result. So they have set us up for another crash and bail out. The Glass-Steagall Act was was established in 1933 for exact circumstances that occurred in 2007. No bank should be to big to fail that is one of the incentives that curb rampant careless speculation. Forcing banks to either specialize as commercial banks vs investment banks would lower the risk of a bail out and make the banking system more stable. Now banks make more money in investment banks, less in commercial lending. This means that banks today invest more into speculation less into commercial lending. Breaking up the banks would increase the cash flow to commercial lending if that were there only business. Glass-Steagall ended in 1980 to the benefit on the rich. The termination released vast somes of cash into speculative banking increasing larger returns of their investments. Restore Glass-Steagall and restore an equitable financial system to the US citizens.

Why does anybody who was alive in 2008 even need to ask this question? Merged commercial and investment banks take bigger risks with money not their own, and commit bigger fraud, and hold bigger and bigger segments of society hostage to their corporate interests. Hell YES, they need to be separated! AND more tightly regulated, to keep them from turning cannibal, as well! And we need to put Congress on Cobra and Medicaid too. At once.

This is a no brainer. Banks should not be able to bet using people's savings as collateral.

Good first step. However if I'm not mistaken congress has also voted to repeal Dodd-Frank. We can't allow that. We need regulations because you can't count on corporation and banks to do the right thing. They have to be forced.

Yes, they should. If it was a good enough measure to undertake during the Great Depression as one of the first New Deal reforms to address precisely the root of the financial collapse in 1929, then it's good enough to reimplement. It would have clearly saved ordinary Americans from the destruction wrought by risky investment bank interactions in the Great Recession, and would have eliminated essentially the only reasonable argument against letting the Wall Street investment banks collapse during 2007-8 and viewing them as "too big to fail" (in need of rescue by taxpayer money). They were only too big to fail because taxpayers would have lost money in commercial banks (like what happened in the Great Depression). With Glass Steagall still in place, the big banks could have failed (as they deserved to do by none other than the logic of free market economics) and commercial bank holdings would have been protected.Moreover, Donald Trump campaigned — as did Bernie Sanders — on the promise of a "21st century Glass-Steagall Act," and it was put into the Republican Party platform. And yet now, Trump and Mnuchin are blatantly betraying this key campaign promise (as Trump is doing with so many others).

The private sector won't police itself. Regulatory guidance - a system of checks and balances - is necessary. And in many ways, regulations spur innovation and the economy.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

We know why the original Glass-Steagall was enacted, to help ameliorate the boom-bust cycle our financial institutions were experiencing on a far too regular basis, causing the loss of untold millions of dollars in savings and investments by average Americans and American businesses. Regulations were put in place to calm down the chaos of wild speculation and gambling of customers' money. And it worked. Following the enactment of Glass-Steagall, we had decades of financial stability previously unheard of and, yes, banks were still able to earn plenty in profits. These rules, though, were chipped away at, the regulations weakened. Banks were again empowered to take money from peoples' savings and loans and use that money for wild speculation - basically gambling - and, if the money was lost, the customers were in the line, not the banks. We basically socialized their losses and, with that safety net saving them from most repercussions of their irresponsibility, they grew more reckless and developed ever greater incentives to play even faster and looser with our money. And then we had the crash of 2008 and it seemed we all woke up to the fact that we'd created monsters. These banks, acting in their own self interest, were nearly able to bring down our economy and that of the entire world. So, we created Dodd-Frank and, even though it was watered down, it still gave positive results. Banks still made money, but we customers had some assurances that we wouldn't lose our money and we taxpayers were somewhat relieved that we might not again have to socialize the future massive losses caused by those seeking to line their own pockets by again having to bail them out as too big too fail. And yet here we are again, barely 9 years after the crisis, pretending it all never happened, that we didn't see what we all saw, that we did t experience what we all experienced and claiming that this time it will be different. Dear elected representatives, if you want that sweet, sweet financial industry money, I suggest you go work directly with those institutions, but DO NOT use our Congress as their field office. Stop loosening regulations that protect us, our money and our economy and enact even stricter, fairer legislation to ensure we put consumers first. Speaking of, please defend your attacks on the CPB, though this time using actual facts. Staff and fund the CPB properly, cease efforts to assert political control over its actions and realize that it has already saved consumers billions. If you think the CPB should shut its doors, explain why you think consumers need fewer protections.

This is very important to the lower and middle class

A bank should be beholden to its depositors and not to investors.

When I deposit money, it's not an unconditional loan to the bank. There is no reason they should be allowed to simply gamble my savings away.

We don't need another financial crisis. This is a good first step.