Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)71. It really is a small world.
Foreclosure Phil
Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.
David Corn
MotherJones.com
May 28, 2008
Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.
Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they auditedat one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firmssetting off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industryfriends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional careercame on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered deadeven by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.
It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiworkfar from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swapsand would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."
Subprime 1-2-3
Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worryneither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. Casey Miner
CONTINUED
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil
And very, very bad.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rich Democrats Don’t Care About Income Inequality Any More Than Rich Republicans [View all]
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
OP
Some of them around here state time and time again that they care more for social issues.
stillwaiting
Sep 2015
#96
The best way to share wealth is to support a safety net in your own country that makes
JDPriestly
Sep 2015
#61
Bernie can hang with anyone, but he would not push for the same or similar policies.
merrily
Sep 2015
#38
Huh? Posting a photo of Presidents means I can't tell a conservative from a liberal now?
merrily
Sep 2015
#68
And a rich white person is not racist to a rich back person, but to none rich blacks, now that is a
LiberalArkie
Sep 2015
#14
Or the immigrant status, or the yellow skin or red skin or even jail time.
LiberalArkie
Sep 2015
#32
Roger That - HRC Represents The 1% First And Always - A Perfect 1% Stealth Canididate
cantbeserious
Sep 2015
#20
The Clintons ARE in top-tier of 1%-ers themselves as well. "CLINTONS’ INCOME TOPS 99.9% OF AMERICANS"
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
#24
I may have to edit that post. It seems closer to their combined INCOME that year.
merrily
Sep 2015
#50
If FDR could comprehend it, I suspect Bill and Hillary could too. Whether they do or not is a more
pampango
Sep 2015
#25
We don't know what motivated FDR. However, FDR never tried to play like he had no money.
merrily
Sep 2015
#40
All 99% are not in pain. And 99% means an annual income of under 389K*.Broad brush painting
Fred Sanders
Sep 2015
#46
Know Thy Enemy - Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - And Their MIC, Media And Political Minions
cantbeserious
Sep 2015
#48
Who are not the young students still in college included in this single social study.
Fred Sanders
Sep 2015
#49
Too facile and too low. On income alone, it's $389,000 per annum. (And 50% are below $52,000)
merrily
Sep 2015
#69
The title of the thread is based on a false premise. Folks want to go with it, be my guest.
Fred Sanders
Sep 2015
#103
It's not only the bankrolling. It's things like the media, the debate schedule, claiming
merrily
Sep 2015
#43
I offer this only in the spirit of consideration, but why do you think that the...
Shandris
Sep 2015
#56
You have to have been "poor" to understand anything about the poor and therefore can not fashion
Fred Sanders
Sep 2015
#59
It's called taxing the very rich, at much higher rates, like we had w/ the Eisenhower Administration
99th_Monkey
Sep 2015
#60
Do you think that anyone can really 'earn' a billion dollars a year?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Sep 2015
#99
Jealously is a green eyed monster, and threads like this are good evidence of that truth.
Fred Sanders
Sep 2015
#104
Someone ought to recall under what circumstances Bill Clinton and Barack Obama grew up
DFW
Sep 2015
#115
I wish the dialogue were about *wealth* inequality rather than *income* inequality.
Marr
Sep 2015
#92
Voters figured that out quite a while ago. See the poll numbers for both Political Parties. And see
sabrina 1
Sep 2015
#87
For people who are both Democrats and also Wealthy Privileged Elites, to which group do you
GoneFishin
Sep 2015
#98
These people care very deeply... you'll have to excuse me, sniff... about the injustice of it all
whereisjustice
Sep 2015
#109