Don't let them blame Clinton for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act.

[davepc]

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q that allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act signed by William J. Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act


Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act.

53 Republican Senators plus one Democrat - YEA

44 Democrats no Republicans - NAY

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)

NAYs ---44
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cleland (D-GA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
Inhofe (R-OK)

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

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), is an Act of the United States Congress which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services. Other major mergers in the financial sector had already taken place such as the Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation combination in the mid-1990s. This combination, announced in 1993 and finalized in 1994, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Acts by combining insurance and securities companies, if not for a temporary waiver process <1>. The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the financial services industry.

...

Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.<6> Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have made similar criticisms, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act



Republican lies are claiming that the vote for the Gramm bill was 90-8. With John McCain not voting. That is a LIE.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Can we blame both Bill Clinton and John McCain? NT

NT

[chupacabranation]

48. VETO PROOF MAJORITY

I'm going to say it here so people don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[Lord Helmet]

52. seems fair since they are both at fault

[chupacabranation]

54. Uhhh......Right.

He signs something because he essentially has to (he will either sign it or the pocket veto will be overwritten).

Vs. the impetus for the bill falling squarely on the Republicans shoulders. And most of the support falling there, as well.

Right. Equal weight there.

[ingac70]

2. This highlights why DLC needs to be purged from the party.

He should have never signed the legislation when the party line was against it.

[eleny]

7. Amen

[magellan]

11. Double amen. n/t

[MrsCorleone]

16. Triple amen. Years later, the sting of betrayal lingers with me.

[antigop]

18. Absolutely. n/t

[LanternWaste]

20. Cool... a purging!

Cool... a Purging! Maybe tomorrow a Pogrom against some random group, and after that some Ideology Rallies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Absolutely

[girl gone mad]

32. 100% and anyone who brings up Clinton/Glass-Steagall..

needs to be reminded that Obama won the primaries because he's for a new direction.

We're purging the Reagan Democrat wing.

[tbyg52]

47. Down with the DLC! nt

[Vincardog]

56. Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen Amen

[Donald Ian Rankin]

69. Yeah! Small but perfectly formed!

We may not win elections, but at least we'll be ideologically pure.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

3. Good find

:kick:

[City Lights]

4. He bears as much responsibility as those who voted for it, IMHO.

No more. No less. He could have vetoed it, but didn't.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Thanks for the info

heard a jerkoff on New Orleans right wing radio say that he just had to "balance" the conversation by informing one and all that he heard on Fox News last night that (in so many words) it was all Clinton's fault.

[liberalmuse]

6. I don't blame Clinton for a lot of that kind of crap.

He was trying to compromise with an asshole right wing Congress for most of his terms.

[billyoc]

8. "He was trying to compromise with an asshole right wing Congress for most of his terms"

and you DON'T blame him? :rofl:

[liberalmuse]

9. No...

I'm a compromise sort of person, so I sympathize. It was either that, or get nothing at all done.

[Zhade]

39. Except, you know, when he had a DEM congress and passed things like NAFTA.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your hagiography!

[Pale Blue Dot]

10. I blame him. He signed a terrible bill against his party's wishes.

That one signature probably cost us our future. A veto may have spared us.

I blame the Republican party AND Bill Clinton.

[still_one]

15. How about this, why not blame the PEOPLE!!! /nt

[alarimer]

12. The Democrats are very complicit in this.

Nobody should ever claim otherwise. These is the direct result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (signed into law by Clinton, a nominal Democrat). And the Democratic Party as witnessed by the corporate love-fest that was the DNC, have their fingers almost as much in the pie as the Republicans. This is the fault of not only deregulation-mad Republicans but also their co-conspirators like Robert Rubin (currently an adviser to Obama, so you know things are not going to get better under him). Hopefully they will have learned something from this and Congress will re-regulate banking. Especially if we manage to elect more progressive Dems but I have no hope in Obama actually changing anything otherwise.

[still_one]

14. Bull. Clinton did not represent all Democrats, as you saw from the Congressional votes

in fact most Democrats voted against the welfare reform act also

There is a difference

As far as rubin being an advisor, so is Buffet, Volker, and others

You indicate that "things are not going to get better under him"

You are WRONG

Obama surrounds himself with different views, not with people who all agree

[gcomeau]

28. Signed into law by Clinton...

...after it passed the Republican controlled House and Senate by a VETO PROOF MAJORITY. Do some homework: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

There are some Democrats in the House and Senate who went along with the vote to give it that majority, THOSE idiots should be held responsible, but Clinton had nothing to do with this.

[still_one]

13. Excellent post /nt

[karynnj]

17. The 90-8 vote that they are referring to is the

bill that came out of the conference between the House and Senate. Those types of votes are essentially perfunctory. The vote you list is the vote in the Senate that shows which party pushed and voted for the legislation that incidently bears the names of 3 Republicans. How disingenuous that they are ignoring the original bill and then expecting credit for not voting. They have no shame.

[chatnoir]

19. Why wasn't this vetoed?

He can take equal blame for this, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Can I blame the DLC then? They were also partially responsible

oh and Clinton signed it.

He should have vetoed it

Hiding your head in partisan thinking does nothing

And now the DLC should be purged for the same reasons the Cons know nothing... bout the economy

[still_one]

24. If you read the OP, he didn't hide the fact that Bill Clinton signed it

As far as your comment:

"Hiding your head in partisan thinking does nothing"

Sorry, but it was accross party lines. The majority of the Democrats in Congress voted against this
The majority of Democrats also voted against the Welfare Reform Act which Clinton signed

Bill Clinton represents 1 person, no more, no less

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. And he was the leader of what party?

Sorry history will not be kind

[still_one]

27. The fact is the majority of the Democrats voted against it. That is history

and that you prefer not to point out that most of the Democrats voted against the "leader of the party", and I think that is a much more powerful statement

That is unheard of with the republicans

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Look most folks don't know what Glass Steegal is, or who did what

but it remains a fact that tarring him (and the party is easy)

The only saving grace is... that he voted against his party... assuming folks listen that far

And that this happened NOW... not ten years ago

So the one who will get most of the Tar will be Hoo... err Bush...

But I know who signed what... I also know that most of the details will remain in the halls of graduate history seminars

But try to be honest, goes father

[davepc]

23. The *REPUBLICANS WROTE THE LAW* that led to this mess.

[still_one]

26. I agree. The fact that Bill Clinton signed it, did not reflect on those Democrats against it

Just like Bill Clinton signed the Welfare Reform act which MOST Democrats voted against

The majority position of the Democrats was that they were against it

That some find it necessary to highlight the fact that Bill Clinton signed it, while brushing over that MOST Democrats oppossed it is disingenuous

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. He SHOULD have vetoed it

oh never mind

[still_one]

36. I agree with you he sould have vetoed it, and also the telecommunications act

along with the welfare reform act, among other things like NAFTA etc

but my point was simply the party did not follow him

[chupacabranation]

44. Veto-proof majority.

VETO PROOF. Jeez people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[trotsky]

40. One clarification: McCain's CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER wrote the law! n/t

[ljm2002]

51. Thank you!!! Important fact!!! PHIL GRAMM WROTE THE LAW...

...that has come back to haunt us today with a meltdown in the financial sector.

Yes, that would be the same PHIL GRAMM who, along with his wife, set up the Enron Debacle.

Yes, that would be the same PHIL GRAMM who is JOHN McCAIN's CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR...

That PHIL GRAMM.

[JackRiddler]

31. Cut the bullshit, please. A Republican president would veto bills he didn't like.

You can make a fine case for it being a Republican bill in the Republican spirit. And hooray for the Democrats who voted against it.

Nevertheless, a presidential veto is still worth 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

Your post merely highlights that fact, and no equivocation or DLC-friendly talking point will ever get away from that fact.


---


Clinton collaborated with the Bush mob from 1993 forward. He never fought them, he made the second Bush regime possible.

[still_one]

37. jost Congressional Dems voted against it. In fact there were quite a few

issues the Dems in Congress voted against

problem was they didn't have enough votes

[JackRiddler]

43. Did they have enough votes to sustain a veto?

And tell us about the millennium communications act, the welfare "reform," the Clinton terrorism act... Were all these unstoppable?

[still_one]

67. you don't have an argument from me /nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. Republicans don't veto Republican policy.

[JackRiddler]

68. (that's not what I said) And Clinton didn't veto Republican policy either, it seems.

[Hawkowl]

33. FUCK CLINTON!!!

I've been saying it since his administration! He was the best REPUBLICAN president ever. DLC corporate, free marketing, piece of crap!

VETO POWER! He could've vetoed it. And how was he repaid for cooperating with the corporate bastards? Impeached for a blowjob.

[Greyhound]

34. The most important Democratic vote that made it possible was the Big (red) Dawg.

I've said it for years and maintain that Bill Clinton was the best Republik President since Lincoln.

:grr:

[still_one]

38. ok, so Clinton isn't running /nt

[Greyhound]

42. No, thankfully. The OP is about how it isn't Clinton's fault, when in fact, it is.

Even a pocket veto would have averted this disaster, which plenty of people were warning about then.

There was no possibility of over-riding a veto, so why would he sign it if he "felt our pain"?

Sorry, you're talking with one of his victims and we will never forget and have not yet had a moment of respite since, so not ready to forgive either.

[still_one]

66. definitely no need to say sorry, hope everything works out OK for you /nt

[Fla Dem]

35. Excellent article by David Corn regarding Phil Gramm and deregulation bill.

Foreclosure Phil
By David Corn

July/August 2008 Issue

McCain campaign adviser is to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time.....more

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclo...

[yardwork]

41. Bill Clinton should have vetoed it, and Hillary Clinton should have voted against the war.

But the salient point is that neither Clinton is running for office right now. Two people involved with this are running for office: John McCain (who voted to repeal) and Joe Biden (who voted to maintain it).

Who am I going to vote for now? The man with intelligence and courage - JOE BIDEN and his running mate, BARACK OBAMA.

[chupacabranation]

45. VETO PROOF MAJORITY

AHHHH


VETO PROOF MAJORITY PEOPLE! JESUS H!

DON'T YOU READ?!??

Try reading the WHOLE Wiki next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[chupacabranation]

46. As an addendum

Bill Clinton signed the Act due to a VETO PROOF MAJORITY. Please do not let people imply that the Act bears his unfettered approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[Dr. Strange]

49. It bears his signature.

So it clearly doesn't bear his unfettered disapproval.

[chupacabranation]

53. It's called "process."

I guess we're not used to that anymore, with what's happened in the last 8 years.

Takes some time to reacquaint one's self with the idea, I suppose.

[Dr. Strange]

55. Where in the process does it say he HAS to sign it?

Why not veto it and let Congress overturn it? (Assuming he was against it.)

[chupacabranation]

61. Right, or he could've just figured it would've been passed anyway.

Which it likely would've been.

[Pale Blue Dot]

62. So presidents should always sign legislation that will pass anyway?

No matter what that legislation says?

And are you SERIOUSLY claiming that the only reason Clinton signed it is because it would have passed anyway? That's interesting revisionist history.

[chupacabranation]

65. I'm not claiming to know why he passed it.

Are you?

All I'm saying is that it's highly possible, if one wants to reduce adversarial feelings between the Executive and Legislative branches, to allow a bill to pass, when one knows that pocket veto'ing it would not only allow it to pass but ADDITIONALLY foment ill will.

[EFerrari]

60. Bill, is that you?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

57. Here is the Frontline chronolgy of the Glass-Steagall Act

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

It's helpful to have a historical perspective and overview and see who the major players really were.

[ourbluenation]

64. Excellent link. thx for posting. n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

58. Clinton was monumental in its passage: PBS Frontline and from a Historian.

A Frontline report on the repeal of Glass-Steagall shows how those with money end up with pens from the President of the United States on their walls.

Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
When Bill Clinton gave that pen to Sanford Weill, it symbolized the ending of the twentieth century Democratic Party that had created the New Deal. Although the 1999 law did not repeal all of the banking Act of 1933, retaining the FDIC, it did once again allow banks to enter the securities business, becoming what some term "whole banks."

The repeal of one of the most important pieces of legislation in this nation's history came about as a result of another Clinton "triangulation," the wobbling attempt to find the middle of the road that has somehow managed to pass for a philosophy with many Democrats for over two decades. As former Clinton former campaign Richard Morris once described it, you move a little to the left, a little to the right. I'd love to hear Clinton give that explanation to a foreclosed home owner today.

With the stroke of a pen, Bill Clinton ended an era that stretched back to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson and reached fruition with FDR and Harry Truman. As he signed his name, in the whorls and dots of his pen strokes William Jefferson Clinton was also symbolically signing the death warrant of Liberal America and its core belief in the level playing field that had guided the Democratic Party. But it was the gift of the pen to Sanford Weill and its assuming an honored place on the Wall of Me that rubbed salt in the wound.


http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html

[chupacabranation]

63. He was no more monumental in its passage...

...than those who supported, promoted, and introduced the bill.

[EFerrari]

59. That's just lame. n/t

[MadHound]

70. Umm, excuse me, but who signed their name to that law

Oh, yeah, Clinton. Gee, he could have vetoed it and spared us lot of this pain. Looking at the vote totals, it isn't like his veto would have been overridden.

Sorry, but Clinton deserves his fair share of blame in this mess for his deregulation of the financial sector. After all, the financial sector ponied up big money for Clinton's election campaigns, they were expecting, even demanding a big bang for their bucks, and they got it.

This is just one more instance of the two party/same corporate master system of government at work. The quicker people like you wake up to this problem, the quicker we can correct it. Playing these partisan blame games isn't productive, you're just letting the assholes off the hook.