Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
It seems that within the past couple of weeks, the notion that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act was a partisan measure, supported by one party and opposed by the other, has re-surfaced.
This claim doesn't survive rational examination, and in the hopes of finally putting it to bed once and for all.
In the House of Representatives, the final vote to adopt Financial Services Modernization Act (aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley) was taken on Nov. 4, 1999.
As we can see, the bill received a great deal of support from both sides of the aisle. This was very clearly not a vote along partisan lines. Current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi voted for the bill, as did a number of Democratic Party notables.Code:YEAS NAYS PRES NV REPUBLICAN 207 5 10 DEMOCRATIC 155 51 5 INDEPENDENT 1 TOTALS 362 57 15
The full roll-call vote record is here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml
Moving to the other wing of the Capitol, let's check the Senate.
The Senate vote was also taken on Nov. 4, 1999.
Seven of the eight nays were Democratic members of the Senate. The Present and Not Voting members were Republicans.Code:YEAs 90 NAYs 8 Present 1 Not Voting 1
The 90%of the Senate that voted for the bill included current Majority Leader Harry Reid, Vice President Joe Biden, and Democratic Senatorial legend Ted Kennedy.
The full roll-call record may be found here:
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
So, I once again assert that the Financial Services Modernization Act (aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley) received broad, strong bi-partisan support, and was supported by a supermajority of Congressional Republicans and a supermajority of Congressional Democrats.
I would invite anyone who is still claiming that the Financial Services Modernization Act was adopted along partisan lines or is the work of one party exclusively to present their factual case.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
All the yeas are the ones who have been purchased by the financial lobbyists to do their bidding. Each on of those politicians is the enemy. Rep or Dem.
All elections are really nothing more than picking the wolf with the best sheep's costume. I voted for Obama because I did not want Palin anywhere near the White House. I prefer an IQ of over 120 for Pres/VP and she is short by about 40 points.
The bill was introduced and sponsored by Republicans. Democrats fought them until eventually mostly voting for it but as I have consistently mentioned it was a Republican lead initiative for the banks. I'll assign some responsibility to Dems for it (and who knows what the politics were at the time) but the father of the financial crisis was Phil Graham (McCain's economic adviser during the campaign thank god he didn't win).
Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on 1 July 1999 by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),   two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed)
It's a bit silly to pretend it wasn't a Republican bill. Fought for and won buy the Republican party. Democrats just don't do the lockstep obstruction as well as the Republicans. They cave in too easily. Some of them resisted it and voted against. Those are the kinds of Democrats we need more of. Republicans just don't have the correct policies that are good for the people. Republican policies are good for the rich and the corporations and for making bubbles that burst. Remember Enron. Remember the Savings and Loan crash. GWB's brother was actually a major player in that savings and loan crash. Yes, it's pretty silly to pretend the repeal of Glass Steagall wasn't a Republican written and supported bill.
Well, the dems caved. They are cowards after all. I think, more significant, is the fact that the repealing Glass-Steagall was a victory for American conservatism. If I took the rooting-for-teams approach to politics, I would point out that this is a situation in which the left was "right".
"I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the truth of imagination. What the imagination seizes as beauty must be truth - whether it existed before or not."
Biden voted for it.
Pelosi voted for it.
Reid voted for it.
Kennedy voted for it.
90% of the Senate voted for it, Danny. So did a significant supermajority of Democratic members of the House.
I understand that you want to gloss over the role the party you cheerlead for played in this, Danny. I really do.
But it's not going to work, Danny. Not at all. Because the votes are right there, in black and white, and they won't go away just because you don't want to acknowledge them.
Biden, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid and scores of other Democrats are just as much responsible for the passage of that legislation as Gramm is. And it was signed by a Democratic President as well.
There's no partisan hay to be made here, despite your desperate wish that there was. This bill was adopted with very broad bipartisan support. A very small percentage of Congressional Democrats opposed it, and the supermajority that supported it includes all of the current Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as the Vice President (Obama neither supported nor opposed it in the Senate, as it happened before he attained national level office).
Sorry, Danny, but your attempts at spinning this won't work. Suck it up, and face the truth.
1) There were no mergers between banks and investment banks until after the crisis started:
2) Your wikipedia vote tallies don't match the official vote tallies that the OP has.With respect to the glass-steagall deregulation, I would make these points, 1st there were no mergers between banks and investment banks from the time of the glass-steagall repeal until after this crisis had begun when the bank of America, Merril lynch merger took place in particular, the combination of citigroup and soloman brothers had already taken place under the g-s system as it took place, so I don’t think the suggestion that somehow this repeal caused all of this, no new mergers took place is a plausible one...
- Larry Summers, Sep '09 (around 45 minutes into the video)
3) Democrats do share a lot of responsibility for Glass-Stegall:
KramerThe fall of Citigroup is a resonant political event--akin to the Republican Party's failure to win reform of Social Security--only this time the bell tolls for the Democratic Party. The creation of Citigroup as an all-purpose financial supermarket and too-big-to-fail banking marvel was very much the accomplishment of Clinton Democrats. They enacted the law in the late 1990s that authorized this megabank monstrosity, with coaching from Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and of course Sanford Weill, the creative genius who built Citi.
Now that this institution has slid into deep trouble and Rubin has been appointed emergency chairman to rescue it, Democrats inherit the stink. They made this mess possible. Will they now accept the meaning of Citigroup gone sour and begin to undo the damage? That is, undertake reform of the financial system in fundamental ways? I doubt it, though the message is obvious.
- TheNation, '07
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”
TheNation, June 7, 2007
yea...and....and I think, whomever was in the WH at the time signed it too..I could be wrong but...:rolleyes:
90-8...... 38 Democrat Yeas, that means yes, affirmative, I agree, lets go, I am in, hey do it, I concur..etc. get it?......only 7 against.....oh yea,they struggled mightily (all of their leadership voted yes too). Unreal, its simply unreal that you continue to contradict yourself, so often, on so many issues.
This is a typical Republican tactic. Steamroller through stuff with dire threats to any who dare disagree then when it inevitably fails to work say "but it was bipartisan" and proceed to blame the Dems entirely. Basically the same thing you did with the Iraq war.
Bullshit. Even wiki says:
In other words it was presented to the Dems as already having the votes to pass even a veto, and even then it only got strong "bipartisan" support by going back and giving some sops to Democrats to make their assholes feel somewhat less sore.The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
You are right about one thing. The Dems have needed to grow a pair since 1994 and you really can't fault the Republicans for being the most compleat set of lockstep party hacks that have ever disgraced the nearly unshamable halls of Congress since it's inception but it is time for that to stop. As Lincoln said, you can fool all the people but for just so long, and eight years is about it nowadays.
It's called compromise, and looking out for the overall good of the nation instead of absolute loyalty to your party and corporate sponsors. Look it up since, as a Republican, it's an absolutely antithetical concept to you.
More weak spin attempts.
The final vote totals are what matters, John, and a supermajority of Democratic Congressmembers voted for the bill. You can join Danny burying your head in the sand and pretending the vote totals mean something besides that a supermajority of Congressional Democrats supported the bill, but that does not change the truth.
Nancy Pelosi voted for the bill.
Harry Reid voted for the bill.
Joe Biden voted for the bill.
Ted Kennedy voted for the bill.
Are you truly contending that these leaders of the party were opposed to the bill, but voted for it anyway?