Democrats trying to blame bank deregulation solely on Republicans. Sigh. 9/22/08
Posted by: John Doe in Uncategorized
Who caused the current financial crisis? Many are starting to blame the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999, which law was enacted after the great stock market crash which began the Great Depression. That Act kept banks from getting too large (to let fail), and prevented them from branching out to become, for example, investment banks. The Democrats have been claiming almost non-stop that the Republican’s caused the financial crisis by this “deregulation” of the banking industry. But a quick look at the actual votes cast shows that the Democrats also voted almost unanimously for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
Granted, the law was sponsored by Republicans, but the majority of Democrats also supported the repeal of Glass Steadman. The Gramm Leach Bliley Act was the Act which repealed Glass Steadman Act. Yes, those were all Republicans, and yes, that was Virginia’s own Rep Tom Bliley. The House of Representatives voted in favor of the act, 362 Ayes, 57 Nays, 15 Present, the Senate voted, 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting. [No, that wasn’t Obama voting “Present,” this was nine years ago and he has only been Senator for 2 ½ years or so. I do not know the exact count of the Democrats and the Republicans in the House and Senate, but it was close to 50-50, with I believe the Pubs having a majority in both back then. So it should be obvious even to the most partisan Democrat that most Dems voted in favor of this rule, too. This is just another example of the Dems voting in favor of something, such as an invasion of Iraq, and then claiming it was the Republicans who really did it. There is blame for both sides, if the repeal of Glass Steagall is eventually found to be the cause of our current economic crisis.
Here, go see for yourself who voted for and against the repeal of Glass Steadman:
S. 900 [106th]: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
|
Jul 20, 1999: This bill passed in the House of Representatives without objection. A record of each representative’s position was not kept. |
|
|
Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting. |
Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 362 Ayes, 57 Nays, 15 Present/Not Voting.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900#votes
Entries (RSS)
What I need to know is how many trees were cut down to make those HUGE flyers I got in todays mail. I bet that POS woman that came to our door on SUNDAY for Obama probably snuck up and pout it there…
Re:Democrats trying to blame bank deregulation solely on Republicans. Sigh. 9/22/08
Posted by: John Doe in Uncategorized
S.900 was originally passed by the senate on 05/16/99 ON A PARTISAN SPLIT.
Of the 46 aye voted there were one (1) dem. forty-four (44) rep and one (1) independent.
Of the 40 nay votes there were thirty-nine (39) dem. zero (0) rep. and one (1) independent.
I would imagine that the final passage was due to all the additional pork that was added when both houses hammered out the differences between their bills.
No, the Democraps wanted to be able to say, I voted against the Bill, before I voted for it. To leave room for dumbies to argue that they were really against it, before they got bribed to vote in favor of it. Doh!