On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:33:29 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:18:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and yet gramm sneaked his thieve's full employment act into the bill
on december 15...2 months after the white house came out in support of


You really have to make up your mind, either he "sneaked:" this in or
he threatened a filibuster and strong armed it in.
You can't have it both ways.
The fact is the language still came from the house bill and the last I
looked, Gramm was NOT in the house at the time.
He must have had somebody else working with him.

so gramm was not in the house...yet you say the house voted this bill
and gramm voted for it in the house??

do you know the senate is not the house of representatives?


The fact is, everybody who voted for this bill knew what it was and
Clinton, who signed it into law knew what it was.

well, no. gramm ammended the bill on 12/15. it was a 262 page
addendum to an 11,000 page bill. do you think anyone paid attention?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:30:34 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:15:12 -0400, wrote:


gramm's addendum to the bill was introduced on 12/15...in the
senate..and it stripped the SEC of the power to regulate
derivatives...the very derivatives that would blow up the economy in
2007

Not sure which is more amusing.
Mr. BP denying that Clinton and the Democrats were whores to Wall
Street, or Mr. Gfretwell blaming the country's economic woes on Clinton.
And Mr. BP bemoans his 401k losses, while not seeing the need to keep
401k's inflated was what drove both Democrats and Republicans to whore
for Wall Street.

irrelevant. the right destroyed pension plans, unions, and removed
ANY hope of retirement for all americans. and the whores were alan
greenspan, milton friedman, f a hayek and the 'chicago school' who
were free market fundamentalists.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:41:41 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:30:34 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Not sure which is more amusing.
Mr. BP denying that Clinton and the Democrats were whores to Wall
Street, or Mr. Gfretwell blaming the country's economic woes on Clinton.
And Mr. BP bemoans his 401k losses, while not seeing the need to keep
401k's inflated was what drove both Democrats and Republicans to whore
for Wall Street.

I am not blaming Clinton alone but agreeing with you that they are ALL
whores to wall street.
BP seems to believe the democrats have totally clean hands in all of
this.

nope. the real thieves were the free market fundamentalists on BOTH
sides who thought capitalism, unregulated and unrestrainted, would
solve all problems.

the left at least never believed this story. the right went from free
market fundies to free market anarchists who thought ANY regulation
was evil

The fact remains it was 51 republicans and 9 democrats who had
the balls to vote against this bill. Clinton had the power to try to
stop it but not the votes to sustain a veto because too many democrats
supported it. He did not even complain a little. He told us how great
it was and signed it.

11,000 pages...and gramm added 262 pages on 12/15. right before the
xmas holiday.

no one reads a bill this large. gramm knew that. it was a procedural
ploy for his friends, just like he now works for UBS

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:34:51 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:21:02 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

the house doesn't vote in the senate. you dont even know there are 2
chambers of congress...



The senate can not send a bill to the president until the house votes
on it.


and gramm is not in the house

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:28:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:51:49 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


so gramm was not in the house...yet you say the house voted this bill
and gramm voted for it in the house??

do you know the senate is not the house of representatives?



I also know that this bill came from the house, not the senate.

gramm wasn't in the house. according to the US constitution, there are
2 houses in congress.


The fact is, everybody who voted for this bill knew what it was and
Clinton, who signed it into law knew what it was.

well, no. gramm ammended the bill on 12/15. it was a 262 page
addendum to an 11,000 page bill. do you think anyone paid attention?

That addendum was H..R.5660 (look it up)
Do you really think nobody knew about that?

yeah. i think no one knew about it.

How about the house members who wrote it?

gramm was in the senate. and it was an addendum to an 11,000 page
bill. which actually happens all the time. rarely with such
consequences

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:40:13 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:38:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

That addendum was H..R.5660 (look it up)
Do you really think nobody knew about that?

yeah. i think no one knew about it.

How about the house members who wrote it?

gramm was in the senate. and it was an addendum to an 11,000 page
bill. which actually happens all the time. rarely with such
consequences

That is just buill****. Most of the offending language was actually in
H.R. 4541, a house bill that Bill Clinton actively supported in
October.

how could he support it iff

1. gramm is in the senate, not the house?
2. gramm didnt introduce it until 12/15?



You can spin that any way you like and I agree 100% Gramm was carrying
the water for this in the senate but it was a HOUSE BILL. that was
written in June and stripped down in December excluding some of the
original language
There was nothing really new here that I can find.

and nowhere does it strip the SEC of regulatory power..THAT provision
was added by gramm on 12/15

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:13:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:48:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and nowhere does it strip the SEC of regulatory power..THAT provision
was added by gramm on 12/15

That is all in HOUSE bill H.R.5660, written by Tom Ewing. Look it up.
Do I have to post the whole damned thing?

then, one wonders, why did gramm add it at the last minute? if it was
available in october, why did gramm wait until the christmas recess to
add it?

and, of course, gramm is in the senate so he has zip to do with the
house...

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:03:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:10:19 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:13:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:48:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and nowhere does it strip the SEC of regulatory power..THAT provision
was added by gramm on 12/15

That is all in HOUSE bill H.R.5660, written by Tom Ewing. Look it up.
Do I have to post the whole damned thing?

then, one wonders, why did gramm add it at the last minute? if it was
available in october, why did gramm wait until the christmas recess to
add it?

and, of course, gramm is in the senate so he has zip to do with the
house...


What part of "H.R.5660" don't you understand?

tell you what. why not check what a right winger says about how much
congress understands its bills, OK?

the 'volokh conspiracy' a blog of right wing lawyers, has a nice post
about how much congress understands the legislation it passes:

http://volokh.com/2010/04/13/did-con...ill-it-passed/

which is my contention all along. congress cant even take care of
ITSELF reading this stuff yet it's your contention they understand
every word in every bill they pass.

it's obvious you're wrong

as to HR 5660...show me where SENATOR gramm voted on it, OK?


I know you have this story stuck in your mind and nothing will change
it so go on with your fantasy. I am done with this. It was 10 years
ago. Gramm is gone, Clinton is boating with the Bush family and the
wall street crooks responsible for this are still working for Obama.

actually not. gramm is not in the obama adminstration

Get over it.

What is happening in congress today? If Obama had not wasted all his
political capital on the "insurance company and medical conglomerate
relief act" this year he might have actually passed some meaningful
regulation. Instead of that he has turned his attention to "cap and
tax" that will put more Americans out of work and create another huge
market in worthless paper.

gee. he passed healthcare reform. guess you right wingers don't pay
attention to the news.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:26:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:09:57 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

it's obvious you're wrong

as to HR 5660...show me where SENATOR gramm voted on it, OK?

Then how was it all his fault?

You keep trying to have it both ways.

If you are really saying Gramm was capable of single handedly tricking
292 house reps, 99 senators and Bill Clinton then we deserve what we
got. They were all too stupid to have their jobs.

it happens. it j ust did. i gave you the reference. no one's going to
read a 262 page addendum to an 11,000 page bill on 12/15.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:18:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:08:04 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:26:00 -0400, wrote:


If you are really saying Gramm was capable of single handedly tricking
292 house reps, 99 senators and Bill Clinton then we deserve what we
got. They were all too stupid to have their jobs.

it happens. it j ust did. i gave you the reference. no one's going to
read a 262 page addendum to an 11,000 page bill on 12/15.

What you didn't explain and even said could not happen was how he
managed to get his 282 page addendum (AKA H.R 5660) introduced through
the house. He even managed to forge 5 representative's names on that
bill.

he's a senator. i guess you don't know the constitution. house bills
often dont even make it to the senate. you keep saying that senators
read every word of a bill. i just gave you a reference showing they
dont.

interesting.


It ends
"Senator LUGAR and Senator GRAMM have worked tirelessly in the
Senate, with the House, and with the Administration to make this bill
possible."

the bill was 11,000 pages long.

gramm's addendum...which you refuse to admit existed...was introduced
right before the bill was voted on, on 12/15.

senators dont even know their own healthcare. and you just stroll
along, pretending that gramm was a representative and voted in the
senate.



There is your cookie.