"Call it the loophole that destroyed the world. "

[ProSense]

Call it the loophole that destroyed the world. It's 1999, the tail end of the Clinton years. While the rest of America obsesses over Monica Lewinsky, Columbine and Mark McGwire's biceps, Congress is feverishly crafting what could yet prove to be one of the most transformative laws in the history of our economy – a law that would make possible a broader concentration of financial and industrial power than we've seen in more than a century.

But the crazy thing is, nobody at the time quite knew it. Most observers on the Hill thought the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – was just the latest and boldest in a long line of deregulatory handouts to Wall Street that had begun in the Reagan years.

- more -

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-strikes-again-the-mega-banks-most-devious-scam-yet-20140212

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bill named for three Republicans.



Former Senator Phil Gramm and former Representives Jim Leach and Thomas Bliley.

Legislative background:

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[7][8][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[10][11][12][note 2]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[11][14] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[15][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[16][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]

- more -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act#Legislative_history

Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

One Democrat: Hollings (D-SC)

How many of the 54 Republican yeas are still in the Senate:

YEAs ---54

Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Here is the House roll call:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll276.xml

[Armstead]

1. I'm certainly glad you're reading and posting from Matt Tiabbi

He's exposed the dark underbelly of the mess we're in.

However, i hope you are not posting this only with the agenda of showing how awful the GOP is and how the Democrats should be let off the hook.

The truth is that both parties are in bed with the awful financial con-artists and institutions who have wrecked the economy.

The GOP belongs in bed with them. That's their role, and its what we expect. And its what we need to fight against politically.

However, when too many Democrats also jump into bed with these bastids it is flat out WRONG. It makes the field very uneven because we don't have clear choice between GOP/Bastids and Democrats/The Rest of Us.

That is all many of us "malcontents" are trying to put across. We already have one pro-corporate/Wall St. party. Its the GOP. Anyone who is supportive of that agenda has a place to go.

The Democratic Party ought to be the place for the rest of us. If that ever were to happen, and the 'centrists" in the Democratic Party would stop muddying the waters, it would make a HUGE difference in our ability to actually have policies and laws that are actually designed to protect and advance the interests of consumers, workers and the majority of citizens.

[ProSense]

2. Wait,

"However, i hope you are not posting this only with the agenda of showing how awful the GOP is and how the Democrats should be let off the hook. "

...you "hope"? I'm posting it because Republicans suck. Clinton signed the bill so you can find consolation in that for your focus on Democrats.

Yeah, I posted it because Republicans are despicable assholes who live to prey on people, especially the vulnerable.

I "hope" you don't have a problem with that.

However, when too many Democrats also jump into bed with these bastids it is flat out WRONG. It makes the field very uneven because we don't have clear choice between GOP/Bastids and Democrats/The Rest of Us.

That is all many of us "malcontents" are trying to put across. We already have one pro-corporate/Wall St. party. Its the GOP. Anyone who is supportive of that agenda has a place to go.

What the hell does that have to do with the OP? Did you think that bringing divisive DU BS ("malcontents&quot and self-rigtheousness into the thread would change the facts of the OP?

[Armstead]

4. Republicans suck. That's a given.

I would totally agree with you and keep my yap shut, if that werev the only cause of these problems.

Democrats are, on balance, better. In many instances MUCH better.

But -- and this is what it has to to do with the OP -- is that far too often Democrats have aided and abetted the suckiness of the GOP and the Big Money Club. Without the explicit support of these Corporate Democrats -- and the lack of real resistance by many others -- the GOP would be just a marginalized minority, and theor corporte backers would be forced to behave themselves.

Until we acknowledge that part of the problem and push to have an actual two-party system things will only continue to get worse and worse, and the GOP will continue to be able to bamboozle many people who ought to be natural Democrats.

If that means being considered "self righteous" well, sorry about that. Better that than enabling the suck.

[ProSense]

5. Again

"Until we acknowledge that part of the problem and push to have an actual two-party system things will only continue to get worse and worse, and the GOP will continue to be able to bamboozle many people who ought to be natural Democrats.

If that means being considered "self righteous" well, sorry about that. Better that than enabling the suck."

...spare me the self-righteous BS, and don't pretend that you don't understand my point: "we,""us" and reference to "malcontents."

[Armstead]

7. I seldom understand your point because it gets buried in ambiguous snark

How about instead of insulting me -- and many others you tangle with -- you stop trying to demonstrate how clever you are at put downs, and be straightforward?

That adds baggage that is not necessary. It causes others to carry that baggage in any responses to you.

I just gave you a direct post about why I reacted to your OP in the way i did. You could have responded by telling me why i am wrong, without imposing your own brand of self-righteousness on it.

If you think i exaggerate the extent of the influence of Big Money on the behavior of President Obama and other leaders of the Democratic Party, how about just saying why you think I (or other "malcontents&quot are mistaken, in your opinion? And then address the response to you without personalizing it and playing word games.

Let me be even more direct. I support the Democratic Party, both because the values it is supposed to stand for, and because it is far better than the GOP. But it also has some serious problems that have gotten worse over the last 30 years. I believe those problems have to be honestly addressed in order to restore a truer two-party system, and restore a balance between the public interest and the greedheads who have gained far too much power.

The greedheads already have a party, the GOP. If the Democratic Party also allies with them on high levels, it undermines its stated purpose and values.

You disagree with that assessment? Fine. But how about addressing the content of it without being personally insulting or deflecting from that basic point?

If your were to do that more often, you might actually be more successful at convincing people of whatever points you want to make.

[ProSense]

11. That's OK

"I seldom understand your point because it gets buried in ambiguous snark"

I never understand the need to be self-righteous:

That is all many of us "malcontents" are trying to put across. We already have one pro-corporate/Wall St. party. Its the GOP. Anyone who is supportive of that agenda has a place to go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498922#post1

I do, however, understand projection:

"How about instead of insulting me -- and many others you tangle with -- you stop trying to demonstrate how clever you are at put downs, and be straightforward? "

[Armstead]

13. There you go again...

This is not about who is more 'clever" or morally superior or any kind of personal competition. But you seem to revert to that as your default position.

I generally try to address people with the same tone they address me. There are many people on DU who I have been able to disagree with, debate with and even argue with on a perfectly civil and friendly basis. That's because we differ on the subject rather than getting into ego crap.

My suggestion that you not respond so personally to people who disagree with you was sincere. You bring a lot of information and insights here, and that's worthwhile. But when you make it a personal contest, you don't do yourself any favors in terms of convincing people or calmly discussing differences.

[ProSense]

14. Well

"This is not about who is more 'clever" or morally superior or any kind of personal competition. But you seem to revert to that as your default position. "

...what is this about:

That is all many of us "malcontents" are trying to put across.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498922#post1

It's certainly not relevant to the OP.

"My suggestion that you not respond so personally to people who disagree with you was sincere. "

More projection.

I'm certainly glad you're reading and posting from Matt Tiabbi

However, i hope you are not posting this only with the agenda of showing how awful the GOP is and how the Democrats should be let off the hook.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498922#post1

[Armstead]

16. Maybe I was wrong in starting this that way

But it was a reflexive response to our past interactions.

[ProSense]

18. LOL!

"But it was a reflexive response to our past interactions."

Eureka!

Seriously, don't blame me for your knee-jerk ("reflexive response&quot .

[Armstead]

21. If it makes you feel better to 'win" than go ahead and bathe in it

But I stand by my original point about the actual subject you posted.

[ProSense]

24. Wait,

"If it makes you feel better to 'win" than go ahead and bathe in it

But I stand by my original point about the actual subject you posted."

...you were for it before you were against it, and now you're for it again?

Don't worry, I will "bathe in it"

[villager]

33. +1 Absolutely so. Blind party loyalty will only abet those world-destroying loopholes...

...if we can't have clearer eyes to see them with....

[Blue_Tires]

3. +1

Always loved Taibbi -- Great writing and sourcing, keeps his topic fresh and interesting, always explores every angle of the issue...

I know it's neither here nor there, but I really wish Taibbi was the one with the NSA goldmine instead of Greenwald...

[Marr]

6. Remind me... who was president in 1999?

We don't do ourselves any good by pretending the problem is just some cartoon villain group called the GOP. Wall Street owns a big faction of the Democratic Party as well. Unsurprisingly, it's the most plugged-in and well-financed faction. In fact, they're so plugged-in and well-financed that their shills are promoted as a fait accompli years ahead of the primaries.

[ProSense]

9. Clinton

"We don't do ourselves any good by pretending the problem is just some cartoon villain group called the GOP."

"We" don't understand why anyone has a problem with calling out the "cartoon villain group called the GOP"?

"Wall Street owns a big faction of the Democratic Party as well."

Did you know that not a single Republican in the House voted for Wall Street reform?

Did you know that the three Republican Senators only voted for it after they inserted an amendment to weaken one of its provisions?

Do you know that Republicans are still trying to repeal it?

Do you know that Republicans are trying to destroy the CFPB?

"We" don't have to pretend.

[Marr]

12. No one is denying that the GOP are corporate servants.

But one of us is denying that the Democratic Party has a corporate wing of it's own. It's a silly claim, since-- as I just mentioned-- that legislation you just cited was signed into law by a Democratic president.

Why the quotes around "we", by the way?

[ProSense]

15. You're right

"But one of us is denying that the Democratic Party has a corporate wing of it's own. It's a silly claim, since-- as I just mentioned-- that legislation you just cited was signed into law by a Democratic president. "

...that is "a silly claim," and you should stop making it and attributing it to me.

[Marr]

20. You're using Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a call to cheer for Team Blue.

That is silly.

The passage of that legislation highlights our single biggest problem as a party.

[ProSense]

22. No,

"You're using Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a call to cheer for Team Blue.

That is silly."

... I using it to call out Republicans. You apparently have a problem with that.

I mean, are you upset that the bill was sponsored by Republicans, and that the OP points out that 53 Republican Senators voted for it?

[Marr]

25. I think my point was pretty clear.

I have a problem with framing Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a purely Republican beast. The legislation was signed into law by a DLC/Third Way President, and is one of the single best examples I can think of for why simply cheering for Team Blue and booing Team Red doesn't cut it.

[ProSense]

26. I know that

"I have a problem with framing Gramm-Leach-Bliley as a purely Republican beast. The legislation was signed into law by a DLC/Third Way President, and is one of the single best examples I can think of for why simply cheering for Team Blue and booing Team Red doesn't cut it."

...you have a problem with the OP for calling out Republicans. Feel free to start a thread calling out Clinton. This one is about the Senate Republicans who voted for the bill.

[Marr]

27. I'll post anywhere I like, but thank you. /nt

[Armstead]

10. Yep. That's the basic problem. /nt

[okaawhatever]

8. It's important that Gramm-Leach-Bliley wasn't the only legislation involved in the set up to the

financial crisis. There was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that kept derivatives from being regulated. Gramm, who has a phD in Economics feels like that was the bigger problem. They were both the problem, but derivatives were what super-sized the crisis.

This is from Wiki, the sources of info are respectable:
Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.[18]
In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having "[p]ushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries".

2008 Nobel Laureate in Economics Paul Krugman, a supporter of Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton, described Gramm during the 2008 presidential race as "the high priest of deregulation," and has listed him as the number two person responsible for the economic crisis of 2008 behind only Alan Greenspan.[20][21] On October 14, 2008, CNN ranked Gramm number seven in its list of the 10 individuals most responsible for the current economic crisis.[22]
In January 2009 Guardian City editor Julia Finch identified Gramm as one of twenty-five people who were at the heart of the financial meltdown.[23] Time included Gramm in its list of the top 25 people to blame for the economic crisis

[Dirty Socialist]

17. Graham Was A Blight on America

He pushed through several deregulation bills that ended up being trouble, including accounting deregulation.

[hedgehog]

19. This same article was just sent out by a major company on its employee media round-up e-mail!

When a conservative company is distributing articles from Rolling Stone, the world has turned upside-down!

[Rex]

23. Crapo?

[MindMover]

28. Not much difference between Repugs and Demos today ...

The slight difference is the content of their stories and how they spin them ....

Same with the media who spread the stories and opinions ...

[leftyohiolib]

29. republicans and republocrats

[ProSense]

30. Yes,

"republicans and republocrats"

...there are some "republocrats," but let's note some keep differences among the majority (in line with the OP).

The GOP’s new push to defang the CFPB
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-gops-new-push-to-defang-the-cfpb/2012/02/08/gIQA1DrfzQ_blog.html

STUDY: GOP Obstruction Is Leaving Nearly 6 Million Americans Without Medicaid Coverage
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/11/3279551/urban-institute-medicaid-expansion/

Kochs take their billions to Louisiana to fight Medicaid expansion
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275870/-Kochs-take-their-billions-to-Louisiana-to-fight-Medicaid-expansion

The GOP is moving backward on gay rights
http://theweek.com/article/index/256473/the-gop-is-moving-backward-on-gay-rights

Tenn. GOP pulls out the stops to fight unionization
NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections

NLRB gives boost to speedier union elections
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024453233

Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024492896

This is why I'm calling out Republicans. They push to destroy the quality of life and actual lives.

[El_Johns]

31. "nobody at the time quite knew it" = lie

[ProSense]

34. Everybody knew it. n/t

[jcboon]

32. My mother called it

Claimed that it was "The end of the world as we know it".
I thought she was exaggerating. . .she was right.

[ProSense]

35. Kick! n/t