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.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 31/03/2010 12:40 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Well, what do you really expect?? We have a black president. That scares
some people. Worse yet, he actually has a brain and uses it.

Ya, and if he was a white president every liberal leftist loser would be
screaming environmental damage.

This is about DC being broke, they need to raise the cash from the leases.



Most environmental groups are. Sorry to disappoint you. It's not about money
or oil. It's about be thoughful and deliberative. Neither of which describes
you.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:26:55 -0400, bpuharic 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..


And, I think it was a major mistake on all their part to remove the regs.
Now we see the result.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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 21:33:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:04:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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


And, I think it was a major mistake on all their part to remove the regs.
Now we see the result.

Unfortunately I have not seen the current administration trying to fix
the problems either. Elizabeth Warren was on TV the other day saying
we are not going to see any effective legislation as long as the bank
lobbyists are outnumbering congress about 5 to one and they show up
with buckets of bribe money.

and the far right continues its free market fundamentalism, such as
richard shelby asserting that no regulations are necessary and that we
need to cut taxes on the rich.

neither policy works.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:04:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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


And, I think it was a major mistake on all their part to remove the regs.
Now we see the result.

Unfortunately I have not seen the current administration trying to fix
the problems either. Elizabeth Warren was on TV the other day saying
we are not going to see any effective legislation as long as the bank
lobbyists are outnumbering congress about 5 to one and they show up
with buckets of bribe money.


I think they're trying. Geitner isn't so bad. If you can, read the article
about him in the Atlantic. It's an eye-opener, and it puts what he and the
Fed are doing in perspective. Elizabeth Warren is really sharp. She's
right... as long as the lobbying money is there, it'll be difficult to get
the Congress creatures to actually do something.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:33:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:04:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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


And, I think it was a major mistake on all their part to remove the regs.
Now we see the result.

Unfortunately I have not seen the current administration trying to fix
the problems either. Elizabeth Warren was on TV the other day saying
we are not going to see any effective legislation as long as the bank
lobbyists are outnumbering congress about 5 to one and they show up
with buckets of bribe money.

and the far right continues its free market fundamentalism, such as
richard shelby asserting that no regulations are necessary and that we
need to cut taxes on the rich.

neither policy works.



There's a long history of philosophical dogma about free market
fundamentalism in the US... sad but true. Even when it's shown not to work,
they claim it would if we would just give it another try. Puzzling.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 19:37:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .


and the far right continues its free market fundamentalism, such as
richard shelby asserting that no regulations are necessary and that we
need to cut taxes on the rich.

neither policy works.



There's a long history of philosophical dogma about free market
fundamentalism in the US... sad but true. Even when it's shown not to work,
they claim it would if we would just give it another try. Puzzling.

it doesn't work. and it's amazing how many americans...the teabaggers
for example, think it does

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.