Talk:Phil Gramm

message: " 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Blatant POV statement in heading

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enron?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gramm's switch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gramm's opinion of Bush 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverse Robin Hood? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Yet more liberal revisionism

message: 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)
thread_title: veterans benefits

message: 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)
thread_title: Reinstatement of Finch comment

message: <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)
thread_title:  Oddness removed to talk page 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Cutting to talk. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speaker identified self as an Obama supporter in the campaign 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  G-L-B legislation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chet Edwards, 1983 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gramm's vote for SSC 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "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)
thread_title:  2007 mortgage and 2008 financial and economic crises: unreferenced, subjective comments deleted