How CRA led to the Crisis

[Landis82]

Quote from Tom B:

The "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" was passed by the house and senate and signed into law by democrat President Bill Clinton.

Given your lack of intellect, I'm sure you'd be surprised that . . .

"the new, compromise version was included as a 262-page rider and attached to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriations conference report . . . with little consideration and no time for review."

In case you don't know how our Government works, the Appropriations Act is what the President signs into law in order to run the government. It is a budget bill that encompasses the funding for the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education for the fiscal year.

 

[Tom B]

Quote from Landis82:

Given your lack of intellect, I'm sure you'd be surprised that . . .

"the new, compromise version was included as a 262-page rider and attached to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriations conference report . . . with little consideration and no time for review."

In case you don't know how our Government works, the Appropriations Act is what the President signs into law in order to run the government. It is a budget bill that encompasses the funding for the Departments of Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education for the fiscal year.

I know you are jaded from being taken advantaged of by random strangers in the Castro district; however, I do not understand why you must insult people that are merely discussing a topic. In case you do not understand how our government works; congressmen, senators and presidents are responsible for the consequences of their votes. If there is a bad amendment to an appropriations bill, then a legislator should vote against the bill. If enough legislators vote against the bill, it would not pass with the amendment. Do you understand how our government works dumb shit?

 

[Landis82]

Quote from Tom B:

If there is a bad amendment to an appropriations bill, then a legislator should vote against the bill. If enough legislators vote against the bill, it would not pass with the amendment. Do you understand how our government works dumb shit?

You obviously don't.

And you make the absurd assumption that every legislator reads every single rider, or that such legislation always receives a hearing. Congratulations! Once again you show everyone here on ET just how completely stupid you are.

The bill was "re-written" MORON, and never reviewed or subjected to a committee hearing! How many people do you think actually read this Bill as a rider, or even were aware that the Bill was re-written in the middle of December of 2000, when the entire nation was obsessed with whether or not Bush or Gore had won Florida, and the Election?

HedgeWorld Daily News, a trade publication for hedge funds and one of the few news outlets following the bill, stated, “Details of the final language are not immediately available. Congressional aides said Sen. Gramm did succeed in getting additional language protecting the legal certainty of swap, especially those traded by banks, which are the main users of the products.

The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation by both the CFTC, which had already implemented rules that it would not regulate swaps and derivatives, and the SEC. Also, hidden within the bill was an exemption for energy derivative trading, which would later become known as the “Enron loophole” – this loophole would provide the impetus for Enron’s nose dive into full blown corporate corruption.”

http://www.readthebill.org/cases/commodity/

 

[WaveStrider]

Is Phil Gramm still at UBS AG?

They are accused of criminal activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_us/us_ubs_secrets

MIAMI – Swiss bank UBS AG "systematically and deliberately" violated U.S. law by dispatching private bankers to recruit wealthy Americans interested in evading taxes and must be forced to reveal the identities of 52,000 of those clients, the Justice Department said in a court filing Tuesday.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm

Current employment

As of 2009, Gramm is employed by UBS AG as a Vice Chairman of the Investment Bank division. UBS.com states that a Vice Chairman of a UBS division is "...appointed to support the business in their relationships with key clients."[30] He joined UBS in 2002 immediately after retiring from the Senate.

 

[Tom B]

Quote from Landis82:

You obviously don't.

And you make the absurd assumption that every legislator reads every single rider, or that such legislation always receives a hearing. Congratulations! Once again you show everyone here on ET just how completely stupid you are.

The bill was "re-written" MORON, and never reviewed or subjected to a committee hearing! How many people do you think actually read this Bill as a rider, or even were aware that the Bill was re-written in the middle of December of 2000, when the entire nation was obsessed with whether or not Bush or Gore had won Florida, and the Election?

HedgeWorld Daily News, a trade publication for hedge funds and one of the few news outlets following the bill, stated, “Details of the final language are not immediately available. Congressional aides said Sen. Gramm did succeed in getting additional language protecting the legal certainty of swap, especially those traded by banks, which are the main users of the products.

The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation by both the CFTC, which had already implemented rules that it would not regulate swaps and derivatives, and the SEC. Also, hidden within the bill was an exemption for energy derivative trading, which would later become known as the “Enron loophole” – this loophole would provide the impetus for Enron’s nose dive into full blown corporate corruption.”

http://www.readthebill.org/cases/commodity/

MORON,

Legislators have staffs that help review the bills. So your position is that since legislators and presidents (with huge staffs) are not responsible for their actions because they may not know what is in the bill they are voting for or signing. That is one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever made on this forum (there are many to choose from).

You are obviously a very unhappy, bitter person. I would suggest you venture out of your Oakland apartment from time to time and take in the sunshine.

FYI, prop-poster Landis82 is closing in on 20 posts for the day.

 

[fhl]

Quote from Landis82:

You really don't have much of a clue, do you?

The Act sailed quickly through the House, but stalled in the Senate due to Gramm's insistence of stricter deregulatory language.

Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or CFTC with any hope of authority in regulating or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. In fact, Gramm's opposition held the Bill in limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election.

But leave it to you to hold Gramm in such high esteem.

Both Larry Summers and Bob Rubin APPROVED of swaps not being regulated at that time.

And, as I said before, you are COMPLETELY AWARE of this fact as you push your anti Phil Gramm spin.

Just go on stumbling and bumbling through life blissfully unaware that people know you are a teller of <b>half truths</b>.

And Phil Gramm is not the president's chief economic advisor. <b>Larry Summers</b> is.

 

[Landis82]

Feel free to continue believing that Phil Gramm was NOT a significant player in getting this ridiculous piece of legislation into the 2001 Appropriations Bill.

Yes, I am aware of Larry Summers having been a "cheerleader" for this legislation, but last time I checked, he didn't have a vote.

And your point is???