On 4/3/10 10:10 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:26:55 -0400, wrote:

really it was phil gramm and his enron VP wife who engineered
deregulation of collateralized debt obligations during revision of the
CFMA...a nice right wing GOP senator from texas


... with the support of Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and Gethner who
worked directly for Clinton..


Nothing would have happened if Gramm wasn't pushing it. You know what he
does now, right? He's pimping for a swiss bank.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:27:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:17:37 -0400, hk
wrote:

On 4/3/10 10:10 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:26:55 -0400, wrote:

really it was phil gramm and his enron VP wife who engineered
deregulation of collateralized debt obligations during revision of the
CFMA...a nice right wing GOP senator from texas


... with the support of Greenspan, Summers, Rubin and Gethner who
worked directly for Clinton..


Nothing would have happened if Gramm wasn't pushing it. You know what he
does now, right? He's pimping for a swiss bank.

Rubin was pimping for Citi Group until they fired him last year. If
Obama had not hired Geithner and Summers they would be Wall Street
execs somewhere too.
The fact remains that Gramm was not acting alone. He had the full
support of the Clinton administration.

no, he didn't. if he did, he wouldnt have found it necessary to
filibuster the bill. that's why it got passed. if clinton had
supported it, it would have passed congress without gramm's
filibuster.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:34:39 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Rubin was pimping for Citi Group until they fired him last year. If
Obama had not hired Geithner and Summers they would be Wall Street
execs somewhere too.
The fact remains that Gramm was not acting alone. He had the full
support of the Clinton administration.

no, he didn't. if he did, he wouldnt have found it necessary to
filibuster the bill. that's why it got passed. if clinton had
supported it, it would have passed congress without gramm's
filibuster.

I guess all those TV clips of Greenspan and the gang were photoshopped
and they had to waterboard Clinton to get him to say this was the
greatest thing since sliced bread when he signed it.

and what we saw was the milton friedman fundamentalist free market
theology take over the american right....pushing the idea of 'smaller
govt' in financial regulation (all the while pushing to end
church/state separation).

alan greenspan was an acolyte of both friedman and ayn rand...neither
of whom thought regulating wall street was a good idea.


You can try to rewrite history and say the democrats were not all over
these dereg bills but it is pure bull****. The 2000 bill passed with
unanimous consent in the senate and overwhelming support in the house.
It was mostly republicans who opposed it there.
I have posted the vote here about 6 times.

and, as i pointed out, the bill was subject to filibuster from the
free market fundamentalist phil gramm, who, at the behest of his enron
VP wife, prevented the bill from being passed until any regulatory
power of the SEC was stripped out. of course the bill passed...it
took alot of work. but gramm, being bribed by his rich right wing
friends, prevented it from being passed until the SEC was made
toothless

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:08:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:32:22 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and, as i pointed out, the bill was subject to filibuster from the
free market fundamentalist phil gramm, who, at the behest of his enron
VP wife, prevented the bill from being passed until any regulatory
power of the SEC was stripped out. of course the bill passed...it
took alot of work. but gramm, being bribed by his rich right wing
friends, prevented it from being passed until the SEC was made
toothless

That would explain a 60-40 vote if that is what happened but the vote
was unanimous.

uh..why? you're assuming they had an opportunity to discuss the bill,
review it and had plenty of time. none of this is true.

the fact is the far right free market fundies slipped this one under
the radar. your assessment is wrong

Your assessment is simply denial that the democrats could have
possibly had anything to do with it.
If that was true they would have passed real reform last year when
they did have the 60 votes. The fact is there wasn't even any
meaningful reform proposed.

uh. what planet do you live on? the bills richard shelby is fighting
against are in congress NOW.

not too bright...not too up on the news. you have your marching orders
from limballs and you fall in step.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 00:52:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:10:51 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


uh..why? you're assuming they had an opportunity to discuss the bill,
review it and had plenty of time. none of this is true.

the fact is the far right free market fundies slipped this one under
the radar. your assessment is wrong

You are just wrong
Look at HR 5660. Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
(Introduced in House)
That is the actual bill that deregulated the derivatives and that was
banging around since June. The fact that it got tacked onto HR4577
late does not mean nobody knew what was in it.

meaningless assertion. because if gramm DID want people to read it and
DID want them to understand it, he would have introduced it with the
11,000 page bill. the fact he introduced a 262 page bill at the 11th
hour, at the end of the session meant he was, as the law school
reference said, trying to sneak it in.


Your assessment is simply denial that the democrats could have
possibly had anything to do with it.
If that was true they would have passed real reform last year when
they did have the 60 votes. The fact is there wasn't even any
meaningful reform proposed.

uh. what planet do you live on? the bills richard shelby is fighting
against are in congress NOW.


Your idea that if there were no republicans everything would be OK is
just wrong. Again, read who voted against this bill. 51 republicans
and 9 democrats. in the house.
(roll call vote 603)
NO senators voted against it.

irrelevant. gramm snuck it in at the behest of his paymasters at the
very end of the session, knowing no one would read it.

so you are either lying or stupid. being right wing, however, i
wouldnt rule out both

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:10 -0400, wrote:



I guess all those TV clips of Greenspan and the gang were photoshopped
and they had to waterboard Clinton to get him to say this was the
greatest thing since sliced bread when he signed it.
You can try to rewrite history and say the democrats were not all over
these dereg bills but it is pure bull****. The 2000 bill passed with
unanimous consent in the senate and overwhelming support in the house.
It was mostly republicans who opposed it there.
I have posted the vote here about 6 times.

incidentally you might want to check out this discussion of gramm's
role in destroying the US economy at the behest of the free market far
right:


http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/post_140.php?page=all

In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas
break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential,
11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal
textbook would later call ‘a stunning departure from normal
legislative practice,’ the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page
amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.
There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional
Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had
authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services
industry.
-------------------

so in a 11th hour move, gramm sneaked a 262 page amendment into an
11,000 page bill, knowing that congress had no time to debate it, and
which was necessary to pass.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:11:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:13:30 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:43:10 -0400, wrote:



I guess all those TV clips of Greenspan and the gang were photoshopped
and they had to waterboard Clinton to get him to say this was the
greatest thing since sliced bread when he signed it.
You can try to rewrite history and say the democrats were not all over
these dereg bills but it is pure bull****. The 2000 bill passed with
unanimous consent in the senate and overwhelming support in the house.
It was mostly republicans who opposed it there.
I have posted the vote here about 6 times.

incidentally you might want to check out this discussion of gramm's
role in destroying the US economy at the behest of the free market far
right:


http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/post_140.php?page=all

Perhaps you should go to Thomas.loc.gov and read the actual bill,
actions and votes and not depend on "the alternate press" for your
propaganda.

and perhaps you should read the history of the bill and not rely on
the mainstream media for yours.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 00:54:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:17:42 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


Perhaps you should go to Thomas.loc.gov and read the actual bill,
actions and votes and not depend on "the alternate press" for your
propaganda.

and perhaps you should read the history of the bill and not rely on
the mainstream media for yours.

I am reading the actual bill and the history. Quick quiz, what date
did they do the final vote?

fine. you go read the 11,000 page bill. you say you actually read
11,000 pages? is that what you're saying?