Talk me down from a RW'ers talking point

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 10:53 PM
Original message

Talk me down from a RW'ers talking point

OK, Phil Gramm's bill was originally passed along partisan lines, then obviously language was put in to help the working poor obtain loans, but beyond that, how did it go from a partisan bill to passing in the house 3 to 1 and then passed by Clinton, this is a major right wing talking point.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mckara

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 10:57 PM
Response to Original message

1. Ernest Hollings, SC, was the Only Democrat Voting Aye, Originally

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

donco6

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 10:59 PM
Response to Original message

2. Don't know. But . . .

. . . considering it's been in place since 1999, how do Republicans explain why they did nothing to fix it? They've been at the wheel for quite some time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. That's a very good point, thanks, but how do you counter the house vote 3-1 in favor?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

donco6

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #4

11. Politics.

They evidently were fine with it as long as it didn't harm the availability of loans for low-income citizens. When they added that language in a compromise, they evidently felt compelled to vote in favor.

However, as it became more and more evident over the years that the size of merged banks was excessive and endangered the financial markets of the world, only the Republican party was in any position to make changes to this law. And they have CHAMPIONED deregulation in all areas for many, many years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #11

14. Also a good point, thanks.... I guess there is fault on both sides, but the Repukes did nothing when

it was evident years ago what was going on...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rufus dog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #4

13. There was corrections to the original bill

Not in the intent of the bill from my understanding, rather cleaning up text. That is what passed, 90 to 8 I believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mckara

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message

3. This is Why I Couldn't Support Hillary

Otherwise, I loved her, but I saw this coming when I sold my entire stock portfolio 2 years ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. What do you mean? Because it wasn't vetoed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mojorabbit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. I thought it was a veto proof majority? nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. Well, in the senate it was along partisan line 55-44, but went big in the house 3-1 - which wasn't

along party lines... I wonder if the bill the House voted for had that language the Dem's in the Senate wanted. However, no Dem should have allowed that bill to pass regardless of what they were able to get into it as remuneration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stellabella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:03 PM
Response to Original message

6. If it had been vetoed, first the repukes would have screamed

bloody murder, then it would have passed as soon as junior stole the reins.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NotThisTime

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Very good point, but must get over the 3-1 house vote.... The bill the house voted on, did it have

have the language in it that the Dem's in the Senate wanted?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Stellabella

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. I don't know.

There are a lot of people smarter than me who know more about it.

Wish I could help!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

VP505

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:06 PM
Response to Original message

9. Here is an article that I found that

Edited on Sun Sep-21-08 11:07 PM by vpilot

might have some info that you can use, there are also some links to other articles that might also be useful. http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Zen Democrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Sep-21-08 11:26 PM
Response to Original message

15. The Gramm-Leach bill that finally passed was veto-proof ... n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Midwestern Democrat

(238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-22-08 12:07 AM
Response to Original message

16. Good question - I'm not exactly sure what happened in the House on this

bill. I'd be shocked if that many House Democrats actually "supported" the repeal of Glass Stegall - the House Democrats are generally more liberal than their Senate counterparts (i.e. the Iraq War vote; the NAFTA vote). This wasn't the first time the repeal of Glass Stegall was attempted - the Democratic House had killed three earlier attempts (in 1984, 1988, and 1991).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

spiritsong13

(27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-22-08 01:49 AM
Response to Original message

17. Here's what happened

It was passed by the republican House and Senate over Clinton's VETO. This has never been Clinton's fault. Check the facts on it. Sorry I don't have a link to give you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:19 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.