Talk:Phil Gramm

Blatant POV statement in heading

" He has been referred to as the "high priest" of the deregulation efforts widely blamed for the 2008-2009 bank and economic crisis."

I am once again removing this statement from the heading, because it clearly violates WP:POV. First of all, this is not cited material. Second, it was made by Paul Krugman, a partisan economist and someone who politically opposes Gramm. This is not neutral writing.

I am again restoring it, as it is indeed cited. To see the citation, you might read the article or you might search for "high priest" and follow the citations. If you object to MSNBC's presentation of the news, please address your concerns to them. If you have another wp:RS that objects to the the MSNBC coverage, please add it, with appropriate prose, to achieve balance, and thus to keep the article to wp:NPOV. If you truly believe this does not belong, you might consider following wp:dispute resolution, or proceed directly to opening an RfC, but I would expect such an RfC to generate little interest. If your objection is that the citation is not duplicated in the lead, please see wp:lead. If you truly believe it needs to be duplicated, I'll do it, just let me know.- sinneed (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see wp:talk. New sections should be added at the bottom, so that they can be easily found, and the talk page will stay at least somewhat organized.- sinneed (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

After considering, I note that this is adequately covered in the body. While the reason for the removal I can't support, I don't see the great need for it in the lead. I have reverted my restoral of the header.- sinneed (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned on the into because that is the most profound aspect and reason of media coverage for Phil Gramm. The user who removed it was later banned from editing Wikipedia due to his repeated destructive edits, which isn't very surprising. --82.28.209.191 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

gramm&associates

Is "Partner, Gramm & Associates" the correct name? What was the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation? RickK 05:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I tried to answer the latter. Please see the current version of the article. Wenteng 05:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Enron?

I have removed the reference to Wendy Gramm's membership of the Enron board. This was the only addition the anonymous poster made and it is irrelevant to her husband's info. She was also a member of the board for the Iowa beef processors, Invesco funds, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and several other organizations. She has held numerous position in government as well. But the addition of the Enron information is POV when it is out of context. If the poster wants to write an article about Wendy Gramm and include this and other facts about her, I encourage him/her to do so. But I don't believe it is appropriate to slip it in her husband's entry when it is irrelevant to him and out of context. - Dan Lovejoy

Don't be silly. I've never heard of the "Iowa beef processors Loophole" but if Gramm had written legislation that was widely believed to have caused the collapse of the Beef Industry, it would be in the article as well. Of course it is relevant that his wife was a member of the board for the infamous company for which the infamous legislation that he wrote was named. Stop injecting politics.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.209.140 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Were it not that Enron has been discovered to be a grossly corrupt corporation that bilked its shareholders and customers and the people of the United States in general out of an unbelieveable sum of money, your argument might hold water. As it has infact been discovered to be such an aforementioned corporation, that a board member is the wife of a national legislator is worth mentioning in three words at the end of an article. --B. Phillips 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have put something back in about Enron as it was Gramm who pushed through the legislation deregulating the energy market that led to much of Enrons fun and games. His wifes "involvement" for want of a better phrase can stay here as minimum mention I would think because it explains his involvement. CaptinJohn 13:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

again, all mention of Enron has been suspiciously sanitized from this article, esp given Gramm's responsibility for the enabling legislation of the Enron Loophole bill. ref David Corn article in Mother Jones [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the Enron issue, Paul Mason comments on the connection in Meltdown: The End Of The Age Of Greed (2009), pp57. --Vvmodel (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gramm's switch

I had heard that he was also attending Democratic party meetings and leaking information to the Republicans. That would be another reason to kick him off of the Banking Committee, if true.

You just heard this; there's no citation or anything confirming it. I have college workt o do and I know about flame wars so people can take care of it, but unless a Citation is posted it shouldn't be up there. - Billy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.220.232 (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gramm's opinion of Bush

This is somewhat irrelevant to this article, but interesting to note. Gramm visited one of my undergraduate political science classes a few years ago to answer questions about each of the presidents he has known in his years in Washington. He was generally praiseworthy of each of the men, including Carter and Clinton (though he noted that he thought Clinton was a bit strange). When he got to W. Bush, however, he was rather critical. He didn't explicitly say "Bush is an idiot," but all of his comments gave me the feeling that that was his impression, and this was at a time when Bush's approval ratings were riding high. It's not that all of his comments about Bush were negative, but I still remember how surprised I was by his Bush comments, especially when compared to his comments about the other presidents. And that's my Phil Gramm story. - Jersyko·talk 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A Few Questions

I don't want to wade into an editorial nightmare here, but this article is lacking a lot of major content about...shall we say... Gramm's other investments. This almost seems like an article hijacked and whitewashed of anything bad about him... Again, I don't want to start an edit war.. but will people attack me if I start adding some of these things? SirChuckB (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't. By the way...would the "other investments" to which you refer include the likes of "Truck Stop Women"? 209.183.51.44 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to be..... I don't know... I guess you could call it diplomatic... I just didn't wanna come in screaming "He produced Pron, He Produced Pron." SirChuckB (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also in an attempt to not just dive in, has there been any discussion over his "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly joke?" That was the first I ever heard of him... it seemed a pretty important event... worth a mention? SirChuckB (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that that particular bit of vulgarity was contributed, if that's the right word, by McCain. Do you have a source giving the credit, if that's the right word, to Gramm? JamesMLane t c 10:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right.... Don't ask me how I mixed those two up (I actually respected McCain at one point) SirChuckB (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a question about Phil Gramm's involvement in UBS. He was in 2002 (and still is I think) the executive vice-chair of the largest wealth manager in the world. How is this information not yet entered? Also, there is an ongoing investigation regarding UBS (from a Liechtenstein whistleblower) alleging links between UBS and wealthy americans, including members of the US Senate, directly while under Gramm's watch. Source: http://www.money-rx.com/blog/2008/05/gramm-ubs-connection.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.220.186 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts. :) We would need an actual source, rather than a blog... and an editor (perhaps yourself) would have to have the interest to add it in an encyclopedic way. A better source: newsweek Gramm/UBS]

But really... ok, he sits on a bunch of boards... one is/was UBS...UBS is an investment bank...investment banks are in the toilet... this is news for an investment bank article but seems pointless for Gramm's. *shrug*sinneed (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a much better source is UBS Vice Chairmen Furthermore Gramm's position as Vice Chairman is not with respect to the Board of Directors but rather as UBS puts it, "Vice Chairmen of the divisions are appointed to support the business in their relationships with key clients." (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Investor in film

In 1973 Gramm attempted to invest in film ventures promoted by his brother-in-law, George Caton. Only one film, "White House Madness", an R-rated political satire featuring a nude President wandering the White House, was produced. The film flopped and Gramm lost his $7,500 investment.

I cut the above section after giving it a rewrite. wp:trivia seems to apply.

Below is the previous discussion.sinneed (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Bond Head (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. wp:trivia states "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." The two excised paragraphs contain reputably sourced factual information regarding notable (albeit scandalous) events in the life of a prominent elected official. I would agree that this is not significant enough to merit its own prominent section heading. The text should be reincorporated into the "Personal" section at the end, or at the appropriate chronological point of the article's main body. lizardo_tx (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

NotableNoteworthy: no. Scandalous: no. Silliness: yes. The guy gave his doofy brother-in-law 7500 bucks, which he lost for him. Big whoop. Notability: the famous people have as much coverage over how their hair is styled, and as much "scandal". Trivia and silliness. This is an encyclopedia, not the society column.sinneed (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil Gramm is a United States Senator, not a pop star. The information would not be a notable addition to an average biographical article, but the average article is not about an elected legislator. He professes to be an expert on economic matters and a supporter of "pro-family" right-wing causes. Thus, it is notable that he not only invests in nudie flicks, but manages to lose money in the process. It is notable because it is evidence of his questionable competence and veracity. Furthermore you've completely ignored the matter of your cited Wikipedia policy specifically stating that it "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information." lizardo_tx (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Phil Gramm is a United States Senator" - incorrect.
• "Furthermore you've completely ignored the matter of your cited Wikipedia policy" - nope.
• "Thus, it is notable that he not only invests in nudie flicks, but manages to lose money in the process." - notable...yes. Noteworthy, no.sinneed (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1. No, "Phil Gramm is a currently serving United States Senator" would be incorrect. Senators retain their appellation after leaving office. I refer you to Emily Post: [2]
2. wp:trivia cited by you in your 13:57 24 Feb 09 comments as justification for removal states (emphasis added by me) "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."
3. Can you please direct me to a policy page explaining this distinction? lizardo_tx (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1 - Disagree. I see your argument as specious. 2 - Please read the discussion or not as you choose. If you choose only to read the end you will likely not understand the rest. 3 - no.sinneed (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the reference material that this article is based on is missing. Dead links etc.. This is true of the Porn Films information. If it can't be referenced it should probably be removed. The date of the yahoo article was only a few weeks ago and now it is gone. There could be a reason for that. I am finding the reference material for articles about politicians to be really horrible. For the sake of wikipedia it seem like we can do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.100.2 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This porn section is quite neatly plagiarized from this blog post on The Nation's website - even if it's well-referenced, and true, it should be removed on account of the plagiarism. Zookman12 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll un-plagerize it. 67.84.209.140 (talk)

The whole section should be eliminated, it's just campaign season titillation. And, he wasn't a producer, he was an investor. Haberstr (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Phil is actually credited as a producer in the "full details" of White House Madness' IMDB page. I am updating the citation to reflect this external verification of The Hon. Phil's participation in this MPAA R-certified (strong or sexual language, strong explicit nudity) film. Personally I think the section should stay but the title should change from "Investor in 1970s pornographic films" to the less loaded "Film production credits." lizardo_tx (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where the sources claim the films were 'R Rated'. As such I changed the wording to read 'adult films'.FuriousJorge (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073895/maindetails has "Certification: USA:R", as do Mark Lester's other 70's films. Look at the technical details instead of the cast & crew credits. Changing back. lizardo_tx (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies. I have removed the "porn" which is most certainly inflammatory. I *THINK* I have neutralized the language, but it needs a hard look by other editors. I think this entire section is wp:undue weight on a small (yes) investment in a family-member's business.sinneed (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Reverse Robin Hood?

Gramm's main thing was 'supply side' economics, which has its critics and supporters. The Reverse Robin Hood characterization is a way critics describe supply side economics. Big POV problem.Haberstr (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

neutrality problems

Generally, let's leave out disparaging characterizations and stick to the facts. Also, strong and public Obama supporters' opinions on Gramm should be left out when more neutral sources are available. This is _not_ to say mention of his relation to the current economic crisis and Enron should be excluded.Haberstr (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for actual content that compromises the neutrality of this article. It does not matter who the reference source or the author is. What matters is whether the content is factual, and whether it is relevant, and whether it is properly attributed, and whether it is independently verifiable. Even a direct quote from Barack Obama himself might be a good, informative, encyclopedic fact or reference irrespective of general biases of the source. I'm removing the neutrality dispute banner soon unless someone can elucidate this complaint in a way that clearly identifies what needs to be fixed and the criteria by which any fix must be tested.--aphor (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
"Even when the mouth lies, the way it speaks tells the truth." --Nietzsche

If an _opinion_ offered by a non-neutral source adds nothing to an opinion offered by a neutral source, then the biased source should be nixed, in my humble opinion and likely in the opinion of the wikipedia faq. This is exactly what I'm doing by adding two neutral sources but eliminating the Krugman source in the section on Gramm and his relation to the current mortgage/economic crisis.Haberstr (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

additional neutrality problem

One wonders about the purpose and value of the article text reading:

"This was less than two months prior to the U.S. Congress's passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964; followed by the escalation of the Vietnam War (1959-75) by democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. Although the son of a disabled veteran, and having prepared himself for military service at Georgia Military Academy; Gramm did not serve in the U.S. military."

If there is an issue with Gramm's lack of military service, it should be discussed, with valid and relevant sources cited. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning it. Furthermore, readers should question the neutrality of the author of the first sentence of this excerpt. It’s difficult for the objective reader to believe that the use of “democrat” as an adjective (and not capitalized) was a typographical error. It’s possible that the editor of this page is too young to know that such usage has never been proper and has become common only because politically conservative commentary has become so common. Such usage primarily post-dates Newt Gingrich’s rise to the role of Speaker of the House and was rarely seen in published use prior to President Reagan’s ascendency. This grammatically improper form is used frequently, and almost exclusively, by those who consider themselves to be of a conservative social and political orientation, often practically as an epithet, thus betraying the origin and neutrality of the author in question. If one needs the adjectival, and neutral, form of the proper noun “Democrat”, one uses “Democratic”, as is the case elsewhere in this same article. Testingassumptions (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Testingassumptions

"If there is an issue with Gramm's lack of military service, it should be discussed, with valid and relevant sources cited. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning it."

Couldn't agree more. When I first saw this addition it stood out plainly as an unsourced and politicized statement. Let's delete the section you quoted. Bond Head (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet more liberal revisionism

Why is every Republican of note in Wikipedia plagued by a slew of Paul Krugman quotes? Krugman is a extremist liberal who often contradicts himself depending on who is President. Leave his polemics for his own page. For example, Gramm had nothing to do with the meltdown in 2008, not having pushed for sub-prime mortgages and not having perpetrated fraud in the mortgage process. Liberals would love to blame him because he stands for "deregulation" in their mind and they want to blame "deregulation" for the crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:6020:CCBC:E500:19EA:4224 (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Gramm was instrumental in keeping credit default swaps unregulated. The ensuing abuses are largely credited with precipitating the crash. Herman (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

veterans benefits

After reading wiki entries on those involved with the gramm rudman hollings act, i am
stumped here, by mention of gramm himself having personally experienced the value of veterans
benefits. that bill cut veterans benefits. those cuts were later determined to be
unconstitutional. the irretrieveable damage done and compensation or loss of benefits never
retroactively reimbursed to it's victims. remember those "homeless vets" you'd so often hear tell
of? I was just about ready to finish my chapter 31 vocational rehab schooling when this
act changed the direction of MY life. I await phil gramm's personal response to this.
would he call me a whiner?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsdxlr8r (talk • contribs) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement of Finch comment

My edit inserting the Julia Finch comment has been deleted by someone claiming it was the result of a poll. It was not. Finch (City editor of a major European paper) wrote the peice. The poll was a bit of fluff added by the paper but was not the source cited - and ignored gramm anyway. I think Finch is a credible source and will reinstate unless credible reason given why not--Wickifrank (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oddness removed to talk page

 <Financial Crisis - Oct 2008> http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/category/phil-gramm/
 <McCain's Economic Advisor> http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2767

Dropped the "send correspondence to" address, Wikipedia is not an address list. The above may need to be ELs... but if so they need to match the others in format, and be in ... the EL section, rather than the ref section.sinneed (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cutting to talk.

"Gramm's wife, Wendy Lee Gramm, was on the board of directors of Enron when it collapsed, and she was named in many of the Enron shareholder lawsuits." She can have her own article. Why does this belong here? If it does, it needs to be rewritten to say why. sinneed (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

She DOES have her own article, and link to it (by use of those brackets) is provided above. Did that article not exist yet when the above was originally written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaker identified self as an Obama supporter in the campaign

Are the sources inadequate? If so, please fact-flag? Is it not relevant? Please say so. The stated position of a speaker is not wp:OR.sinneed (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

His political alignment needs to be clearly given. Please propose wording that will be acceptable to you, rather than simply killing this. It was a political campaign. The politics of the speakers matters. If you are unhappy with the "Obama supporter", what *FACT* not wp:OR can we include that will allow the *reader* to judge the value of the statement. The current source being a video, many will not look at it, and I'll be looking for a better source... but this isn't way up my priority list. If the source isn't adequate, we can kill it and its covered information, of course, but the "high priest of deregulation" blurb seems very popular, and I would hate to lose it.sinneed (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

G-L-B legislation

The article states, regarding Congress' action on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, that the bill "was introduced on the last day before Christmas holiday and never debated by either congressional body." This characterization suggests that repeal og Glass-Steagall received little attention or debate and was rammed through Congress as they were adjourning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who followed this issue knows that the repeal of Glass-Steagal was debated for over 20 years through countless fits and starts. The reason it was enacted in the way it was in 1999 was that it had become essentially non-controversial. G-L-B had the widespread support of Democrats and Republicans, including President Clinton. I am going to fix the mischaracterization. Bond Head (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claims are baseless, uncited, and they don't changed the facts that the bill was introduced the last day before Christmas and never debated in congress before it was passed. --386-DX (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

After revision to indicate he left the Senate effective Nov. 30 (and not December) in 2002, we now have this:

>In 2002, Gramm left his Senate seat (effective November 30) a few weeks before the expiration of his term in hopes that his successor, fellow Republican John Cornyn, could gain seniority over other newly elected senators. However, Cornyn did not gain additional seniority due to a 1980 Rules Committee policy.

There is a link I followed to senate.gov list of senators, and I gather from a footnote about Cornyn that he gained better office space by arriving early, and it does have early date (w/t to Jan. 3, 2003) for start of service, but that footnote does indicate he does not have that extra seniority. It seems odd to me if Gramm didn't know about that 1980 Rules Committee policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Chet Edwards, 1983

Chet Edwards didn't run in the 1983 special election. So unless he filed and dropped out, that section needs to be deleted, or modified to put the Chet blurb in the 1978 paragraph. --RobbieFal (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gramm's vote for SSC

I have added a sentence pointing out that although Phil Gramm opposed Federal spending and presented himself as the king of anti-pork crusaders, he voted for a massive slab of pork for his own state: the Superconducting Super Collider. For the sake of NPOV I have used neutral language and refrained from pointing out in the article that SSC was a hugely wasteful scientific boondoggle which would have produced zero profitable applications or technological spinoffs and whose measurements would have been meaningful to fewer than 200 scientists in the whole world. But here on the talk page I will state openly that this vote shows clearly that Senator Gramm was opposed to all government pork, except for government pork in his own state. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Phil Gramm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404071532/http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2012/03/01/phil-gramm-launches-dc-firm/ to http://firststreetresearch.cqpress.com/2012/03/01/phil-gramm-launches-dc-firm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140204054125/http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1979/hse_rite.html to http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1979/hse_rite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203233710/http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1980/hse_rite.html to http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1980/hse_rite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203233447/http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1981/hse_rite.html to http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1981/hse_rite.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203231156/http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1982/hse_rite.html to http://www.conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/1982/hse_rite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

2007 mortgage and 2008 financial and economic crises: unreferenced, subjective comments deleted

"libelous" modifier attached to Krugman's opinion requires a legal finding which, if it exists, was not referenced. Statement attributing amelioration of the recession's impact to Gramm has no referenced material. Herman (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)