It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders Voted in Favor of the Glass-Steagall Repeal in 1999

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Looks like Bernie has to answer some questions about why he voted in favor of the legislation that effectively neutered the Glass-Steagall language that supposedly led to the 2008 financial meltdown.

Bernie was a U.S. Congressman at the time and was an Independent.


Strange how then President (Bill) Clinton may have used 3 key RINO Republicans to get that ball into the bleachers knowing enough Democrats were in favor. Could have been a clever plan to get voters to vote Democrats back in Congress when Al Gore was supposed to win the 2000 election and then blame Republicans.


Does anybody know if Bernie has addressed this and what his reasoning was?


Seems More Democrats voted in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Senate Yes votes:
1 Democrat
53 Republican

House Yes votes:
182 Democrat
58 Republican
1 Independent (guess who the Independent was that voted Yes)

President Yes:
1 Democrat

Total Democrats in favor = 184
Total Republicans in favor = 111

Hmmm.


Senate

House

Well Bernie?







posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Poor bankers bernie made them greedy...



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh, they probably promised him some poor families would be fed if he voted that way... or they threatened to shoot a kitten if he didn't... it couldn't be that he was wrong once back in '99.. . or that he voted for that so another bill he felt was more important was passed? That never happens, right?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
While this is Huffpost (definitely not my ideal or favored source,) looking at the circumstances and voting records involved seems to bear what they say here out. I'm not saying this necessarily exonerates him mind you, as he is ultimately responsible for how he cast his vote and for being less than diligent about that in this instance. But this may at least go some way toward explaining his rationale. Or perhaps not.



In a speech on the House floor, then-Rep. Sanders hammered the repeal bill for creating new "taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail."

"It will lead to more megamergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of economic power in this country," Sanders added.

Yet a year later, Sanders voted in favor of legislation to exempt whole swaths of the banking sector from regulation. The discrepancy appears to be due in part to sloppy voting by Sanders, and in part to Gramm's legislative guile.

"No one has a stronger record on reforming Wall Street and breaking up too-big-to-fail banks than Senator Sanders," said Warren Gunnels, senior policy adviser to Sanders. "He strongly spoke against repealing Glass-Steagall because he was afraid that it could cause a financial crisis like the one we saw in 2008. And he's going to do everything possible to break up the too-big-to-fail banks."

When Sanders voted for the House version of the CFMA in October 2000, the bill was not yet a total debacle for Wall Street accountability advocates. The legislative text Sanders supported was clearly designed to curtail regulatory oversight. The GOP-authored bill was crafted as a response to a proposal from ex-Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born to ramp up oversight of derivatives. But the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version, and it didn't draw any of the protests that the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall did.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Or, he's just yet another politician who votes for reasons of political expediency in sheep's clothing. I maintain I'll vote for him in my state's primary, but whether I vote for him in the general election will depend entirely on how much if at all his tune changes once his presidential campaign begins in earnest, should he somehow get nominated. It could very well be the case that, as with Obama, once he's nominated and starts running for the general election, his rhetoric, platform, and actions will persuade me not to vote for him.

Even considering voting for him - or anyone for that matter - is a huge step for me, and something of an experiment. A possibly final self-test as to whether anyone can actually represent my wishes for this country. If he ends up being someone I can't support too... I will finally give up entirely and the lesson will have been hard learned.

Peace.
edit on 2/8/2016 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
It is no surprise this guy has survived politics for almost 30 years.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Is this the best dirt that can be dug up on Sanders?

Wow. He really must be clean.

Today alone we have heard how clinton is being investigated for obtaining emails for voters illegally.

Yet the best we have on Bernie is voting direction.

Wish I was American. I'd be campaigning non stop to get him into office and keep the evil clintons out.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What's weird is this law passed with near unanimous support from Senate Republicans and near unanimous support from House Democrats.

Yet, only a few House Republicans and a single Senate Democrat voted in favor. The Democrats supported the bill in the House and rejected it in the Senate. Seems backwards.

I wonder why?

-dex



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wait, so you don't know if he voted yay? You're just asking the question?

From what I'm reading not only did he vote nay but if he's president he wants to bring it back. You know, his fight against the Big Banks and all.

www.occasionalplanet.org...
edit on 8-2-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: xuenchen

What's weird is this law passed with near unanimous support from Senate Republicans and near unanimous support from House Democrats.

Yet, only a few House Republicans and a single Senate Democrat voted in favor. The Democrats supported the bill in the House and rejected it in the Senate. Seems backwards.

I wonder why?

-dex


Well they always said Bill Clinton's watch ran backwards.




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: InMyShell

Well met and well said.

Seriously considering voting for this man and I'm a registered Republican.

If this is the case against Sanders it just reaffirms that he's the best candidate.

Hillary Clinton is without a doubt the worst candidate for President I've ever seen, yet they keep trying to shove her down our throats.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Your story is a campaign trick.

He voted yes.

It's in the OP link named House

all the way down under "Vermont".

I'm wondering what his explanation is (if he's given one yet).




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah I would too, wonder why no one has asked him yet?

Being how these bills seem to evolve and change were politics afoot and he didn't vote on what he originally read it to be? Did anything change from the time he voted to the time it went into effect?



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

It's possible some of the votes were on amendments or changes.

I can't confirm which votes are which.

It's possible he did vote NO somewhere ?

My sources could be wrong.

If so, I'll take the heat.

Can anybody find the final bill?

I got this from Wiki and one other link that was parroting Wiki.




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

How does the bill he voted for in the house differ to the final, senate-passed version?
edit on 8/2/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Doing some more reading it appears you're right, he voted yay. This HuffPost article talks about it. Sanders is guilty of, what the HP calls, sloppy voting. But it appears my thoughts may be right as well.

m.huffpost.com...


When Sanders voted for the House version of the CFMA in October 2000, the bill was not yet a total debacle for Wall Street accountability advocates. The legislative text Sanders supported was clearly designed to curtail regulatory oversight. The GOP-authored bill was crafted as a response to a proposal from ex-Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Brooksley Born to ramp up oversight of derivatives. But the version Sanders initially voted for was more benign than the final, Gramm-authored version, and it didn't draw any of the protests that the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall did. In October 2000, the bill passed the House by a vote of 377 to 4 (51 members didn't vote), and then sat on the shelf for weeks.

But in December, Gramm -- after coordinating with top Clinton administration officials -- added much harder-edged deregulatory language to the bill, then attached the entire package to a must-pass 11,000-page bill funding the entire federal government. After Gramm's workshopping, the legislation included new language saying the federal government "shall not exercise regulatory authority with respect to, a covered swap agreement offered, entered into, or provided by a bank." That ended all government oversight of derivatives purchased or traded by banks. He also created the so-called "Enron Loophole," which barred federal oversight of energy trading on electronic platforms.

edit on 8-2-2016 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The vote on July 30th in the House, the one referred to in the OP, was to send the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill to conference committee to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills. Bernie Sanders voted in the affirmative for this action.

Once the bill came out of committee, there was another vote to enact the new law. govtrack Bernie Sanders voted nay for this.

So Bernie voted for the House version of the bill. At least to the extent to have the House bill sent to conference committee.
However, he voted against the final product, though the vast majority of both chambers and both parties voted in favor.

-dex



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
The vote on July 30th in the House, the one referred to in the OP, was to send the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill to conference committee to negotiate differences between the House and Senate bills. Bernie Sanders voted in the affirmative for this action.

Once the bill came out of committee, there was another vote to enact the new law. govtrack Bernie Sanders voted nay for this.

So Bernie voted for the House version of the bill. At least to the extent to have the House bill sent to conference committee.
However, he voted against the final product, though the vast majority of both chambers and both parties voted in favor.

-dex


So the Huffpost article is essentially correct that he voted for a far less egregious version of the bill. They leave out however that he voted against the worse version, against party lines.

This restores my confidence somewhat, thanks!

Peace.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Bernie Sanders Voted in Favor of the Glass-Steagall Repeal in 1999.

The only thing wrong with that is he should have voted in favour of a complete expose' of the banking system and of how money gets created.

Govt can create all the money the economy needs using the exact same method the banks use. If govt did this; the only tax we would have to pay is the cost of administering the system which would be extremely little.

Voting to keep the status quo but with a few tweaks, achieves nothing at all in the greater scheme of things.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

As explained later in the thread by DexterRiley he voted Yay on the Bill originally, before the text was in it that would neuter key regulations. After the vote Phil Gramm (a RINO? Really xuen?) added text Bernie was against so he then voted Nay.

He has publicly addressed this because Hillary has tried more than once to nail him on it and failed. LAst time she tried to use it was in the last Democratic debate in NH.

It wasn't even a sloppy vote. His vote on the Bill matched everything he claims to be about, both times.
edit on 2/9/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I think Kali came up with the right explanation.
People have to realize that no candidate is perfect...and Washington is full of deals and dirty tricks.
Bernie has been a very consistent candidate for 30 years.

His supporters will understand and cut him some slack.
Republicans aren't concerned about taking him down...Hillary is the only one who will want to smear and destroy him.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join