What did GWB do to cause the great recession? DJIA crash? Financial meltdown?

[JRK]

to start with young man the Security and Exchange has what to do with a home owner getting a loan?
Please provide links to the legislation

In 2004, the SEC - on a 3:2 vote along party lines, with Republicans in favour - approved an amendment which waived capital requirements for the five large Wall Street investment firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns and Lehman. Up until then, investment banks were restricted in their leverage of 12 to 15:1 assets to equity. They then proceeded to increase leverage to 30:1 or even 40:1, meaning that even a 2.5% to 3.33% decline in the net asset value of their balance sheet rendered the banks insolvent. The investment banks stuffed their balance sheets full of derivatives, which were comprised of mortgage loans, many of which were subprime and Alt-A. Given their "freedom" from capital requirements because "they knew better," Wall Street blew itself up. Wall Street was demanding mortgage loans to feed its structure products machine. That's why they bought subprime originators. Merrill Lynch bought a subprime originator at the end of 2006, just before the whole house of cards began to tumble down. Lending standards were lowered to virtually nothing so Wall Street could push its product into the market and onto its balance sheets so it could get paid gigantic fees and make employees rich. Had the SEC not approved of that rule, far fewer crap mortgages would have ever been written and the crisis would not be as bad. I put the Fed at the top of the culprits for this mess, but way down at #2 is Wall Street. It may be way down, but in my book, it is #2.

What do the regulators have to do with a home owner getting a loan from a bank?

Regulators control the standards at which mortgages can be written. Most states have predatory lending laws. One of the federal agencies - I can't remember which - explicitly over-rode states' laws to allow cross-border banks to ignore those laws. Also, the Federal Reserve regulated the quality of loans, i.e. subprime, Alt-A, and could have told the banks that they would not be allowed to write any more. But Greenspan thought the market knew best, and not only allowed banks but made it easier for them to write crap loans.

Toro you are try to tell us the SEC told the investment banks how to run there firms?
OK
GWB did not start the sub prime market,
Regulators controlling how a mortgage can be written has what to do with person "A" lying to person "B" who does not do his DD to get this loan?
Thats pure spin
we are right back to square 1
The SEC never told any investment bank to do anything to the way they invest there money
you got a link that backs that event up? if so then prison bound many are

The quality of loans is the federal reserves responsibility?
Predatory lending laws?
states?

Your all over the place with this

To start with it is against the law to lie on a loan application, always has been, always will be
It is against the law to loan a person who has lied on there application
What your describing is the federal government owns the banks
YOU CANNOT REGULATE MORALITY
Your claim is the federal government woke up one day and told Goldman Sachs they where being way to conservative, by the way Goldman Sachs is not in the Mortgage business either

your mixing up apples and oranges
regulators
loans
banks
Leverage
securities


what was the leverage on those securities when Moodys had them at A+?
what is the leverage on those securities when the bubble was building?

I am the first to tell every-one, mixing a mortgage with wall street was NUTS
look what happened
THAT IS NOT GWB FAULT
THAT WOULD AN EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1999
in a bi partisan event
Glass
The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 by allowing banks to gamble with their depositor's money.[4][5][6][7][8] Others argue that repealing the provisions had little impact on the financial system and even helped restore stability during the financial crisis.[9][10][11][12][13]

 

[8537]

How did GWB re structure the way a bank operates?

By halving the net capital rule of the largest banks.


The teeth of the SEC regulators.



Well, you'd be wrong about that. both the above changes plus the changes to qualifying definitions were done under the executive branch departments

Are you telling me all of this happened without any legislation from congress?

The above? Yes. the $5,000 assistance for downpayments, probably not.

to start with young man the Security and Exchange has what to do with a home owner getting a loan?

This posts reminds me why I sometimes avoid discussing such issues with you. If you don't understand the relationship between the SEC and private-issue mortgages, I can be of no service - you need education beyond a message board.

Please provide links to the legislation

It wasn't legislation. It was a change in the net capital rule.

we had no problems prior ti 2007 when GWB became a lame duck president
i

and ^this is the kind of absolute head-in-the-sand ignorance that reminds me why i DO discuss issues with you - so that you can roll out statements like that.

 

[KissMy]

READ THIS VERY SLOWLY so you will understand.

The bill was written and in that bill were the parts that defined WHAT a broker was.

IIN that bill a broker had to be a trained professional with proper training from an accreidted entity.

That part of the bill was held up by the Bush admins lackeys and the rest of the bill was implimented.

FOR YEARS they allowed the banks to make ANY dickweed a broker.

They trained any smuck they wanted any way they wanted.

That means there was no one to make sure that the securities they were selling were on the up and up.

They picked lackeys and only trained them enough to sell shit and NOT enough to know they were selling SHIT!


The bill Clinton signed would have provented this crap.

The Bush admin made sure they CHOPPED that bill up and implimented only the part that gave the banks ANYTHING they wanted.

These people you refer to as lackeys knew what they were doing. The thing was it was legal & always has been. This goes the same for the people who wanted to use their home for an ATM machine. They were willing take the risk, cash out of their home & invest it or start a business. Or they just wanted to live beyond their means.

The thing Clinton did was removed the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers to "Qualified Investors". (This is why Wallstreet Bankers are not in jail) That also proved disastrous to State & Local Pensions. Wallstreet had a license to steal from "Qualified Investors" because they were considered rich & smart enough to make wise decisions with their money.

The problem is the Clinton law allowed the risk to be spread around the world. The system would still have crashed even if the home mortgage broker was forced to act in a fiduciary manor while Wallstreet was not. The Wallstreet banks make money on the trade & would have found ways to sell crap into the system as long as they were not bound by fiduciary responsibility or the ones taking all the risk. Making the risk global as Clinton did, made Wallstreet banks to big to fail. We are now systemically tied to the whims of Madmen Wallstreet Bankers.

Bill Clinton Socailized Wallstreet Bankers Losses while the Profits are still Privatized.

Bush increased the risk by increasing leverage & assisting down payments. The Fed lowered rates to low. These things only change the size, but Clinton's Socialized Wallstreet Losses while the Profits are Privatized would have still caused this problem regardless. Risk spreading is retarded! It is like sending a Gambler into a Casino with the Nations Money! He could win big & we would not notice or he could lose everyones money.

 

[JRK]

READ THIS VERY SLOWLY so you will understand.

The bill was written and in that bill were the parts that defined WHAT a broker was.

IIN that bill a broker had to be a trained professional with proper training from an accreidted entity.

That part of the bill was held up by the Bush admins lackeys and the rest of the bill was implimented.

FOR YEARS they allowed the banks to make ANY dickweed a broker.

They trained any smuck they wanted any way they wanted.

That means there was no one to make sure that the securities they were selling were on the up and up.

They picked lackeys and only trained them enough to sell shit and NOT enough to know they were selling SHIT!


The bill Clinton signed would have provented this crap.

The Bush admin made sure they CHOPPED that bill up and implimented only the part that gave the banks ANYTHING they wanted.

These people you refer to as lackeys knew what they were doing. The thing was it was legal & always has been. This goes the same for the people who wanted to use their home for an ATM machine. They were willing take the risk, cash out of their home & invest it or start a business. Or they just wanted to live beyond their means.

The thing Clinton did was removed the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers to "Qualified Investors". (This is why Wallstreet Bankers are not in jail) That also proved disastrous to State & Local Pensions. Wallstreet had a license to steal from "Qualified Investors" because they were considered rich & smart enough to make wise decisions with their money.

The problem is the Clinton law allowed the risk to be spread around the world. The system would still have crashed even if the home mortgage broker was forced to act in a fiduciary manor while Wallstreet was not. The Wallstreet banks make money on the trade & would have found ways to sell crap into the system as long as they were not bound by fiduciary responsibility or the ones taking all the risk. Making the risk global as Clinton did, made Wallstreet banks to big to fail. We are now systemically tied to the whims of Madmen Wallstreet Bankers.

Bill Clinton Socailized Wallstreet Bankers Losses while the Profits are still Privatized.

Bush increased the risk by increasing leverage & assisting down payments. The Fed lowered rates to low. These things only change the size, but the Socialized Wallstreet Losses while the Profits are Privatized would have still caused this problem regardless. Risk spreading is retarded! It is like sending a Gambler into a Casino with the Nations Money! He could win big & we would not notice or he could lose everyones money.

I agree with most
You make allot of correct points

The fed lowered the prime was a 9-11 event
Greenspan acted foolishly by keeping it low to long

the assisted down payment event still would have been ok if the people using that would have been bound to a fixed rate along with a monthly payment they could afford

Thats not GWB fault

One more thing. How many of these homes that (securities) went south are by people who just walked away from them?
There are allot of assumptions being made that are not facts int this entire fiasco
and as Obama did
"never allow a crises to go to waste"
800 billion dollars later we have lost millions of jobs

 

[Sallow]

How did GWB re structure the way a bank operates?

By halving the net capital rule of the largest banks.


The teeth of the SEC regulators.



Well, you'd be wrong about that. both the above changes plus the changes to qualifying definitions were done under the executive branch departments

Are you telling me all of this happened without any legislation from congress?

The above? Yes. the $5,000 assistance for downpayments, probably not.

to start with young man the Security and Exchange has what to do with a home owner getting a loan?
Please provide links to the legislation
What do the regulators have to do with a home owner getting a loan from a bank?

This entire process failed for two reasons
people stopped paying there bills because they got loans they could not afford and some got loans that after they got underwater they walked away from them
Ok, lets blame it on the congress who was in power when it began
the Dems
you want to?
it makes as much sense
we had no problems prior ti 2007 when GWB became a lame duck president

I wi

They started buying loans and bundling them up as financial products. Then they insured those products against loss.

 

[Sallow]

READ THIS VERY SLOWLY so you will understand.

The bill was written and in that bill were the parts that defined WHAT a broker was.

IIN that bill a broker had to be a trained professional with proper training from an accreidted entity.

That part of the bill was held up by the Bush admins lackeys and the rest of the bill was implimented.

FOR YEARS they allowed the banks to make ANY dickweed a broker.

They trained any smuck they wanted any way they wanted.

That means there was no one to make sure that the securities they were selling were on the up and up.

They picked lackeys and only trained them enough to sell shit and NOT enough to know they were selling SHIT!


The bill Clinton signed would have provented this crap.

The Bush admin made sure they CHOPPED that bill up and implimented only the part that gave the banks ANYTHING they wanted.

These people you refer to as lackeys knew what they were doing. The thing was it was legal & always has been. This goes the same for the people who wanted to use their home for an ATM machine. They were willing take the risk, cash out of their home & invest it or start a business. Or they just wanted to live beyond their means.

The thing Clinton did was removed the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers to "Qualified Investors". (This is why Wallstreet Bankers are not in jail) That also proved disastrous to State & Local Pensions. Wallstreet had a license to steal from "Qualified Investors" because they were considered rich & smart enough to make wise decisions with their money.

The problem is the Clinton law allowed the risk to be spread around the world. The system would still have crashed even if the home mortgage broker was forced to act in a fiduciary manor while Wallstreet was not. The Wallstreet banks make money on the trade & would have found ways to sell crap into the system as long as they were not bound by fiduciary responsibility or the ones taking all the risk. Making the risk global as Clinton did, made Wallstreet banks to big to fail. We are now systemically tied to the whims of Madmen Wallstreet Bankers.

Bill Clinton Socailized Wallstreet Bankers Losses while the Profits are still Privatized.

Bush increased the risk by increasing leverage & assisting down payments. The Fed lowered rates to low. These things only change the size, but the Socialized Wallstreet Losses while the Profits are Privatized would have still caused this problem regardless. Risk spreading is retarded! It is like sending a Gambler into a Casino with the Nations Money! He could win big & we would not notice or he could lose everyones money.

I agree with most
You make allot of correct points

The fed lowered the prime was a 9-11 event
Greenspan acted foolishly by keeping it low to long

the assisted down payment event still would have been ok if the people using that would have been bound to a fixed rate along with a monthly payment they could afford

Thats not GWB fault

One more thing. How many of these homes that (securities) went south are by people who just walked away from them?
There are allot of assumptions being made that are not facts int this entire fiasco
and as Obama did
"never allow a crises to go to waste"
800 billion dollars later we have lost millions of jobs

Sure it was. There was a big financial meltdown early in his administration. The whole Arthur Anderson debacle was a clear indication that something was very wrong..and something needed to be done. GWB didn't do anything.

 

[Truthmatters]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

 

[KissMy]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

 

[Truthmatters]

Itsa all right wing spin

 

[grunt11b]

Itsa all right wing spin

Please,stop spreading it here.

 

[Sallow]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

I would think you could get away with saying that the Arthur Anderson debacle was the result in some part of the removal of Glass-Steagall act, when Clinton he signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. But once after that happened..

GW Bush owned the whole pickle.

 

[8537]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

First of all, TBTF banks existed long before Clinton came around - you might remember that adminstrations prior to Clinton had bailed out numerous banks.

Second, Gramm, Leach and Bliley (authors of the financial services modernization act) were all Republicans.

And the CFMA? Mr. Ewing (R), Mr. Combest (R), Mr. Leach (R), Mr. Lafalce (D), and Mr. Bliley (R)

 

[Truthmatters]

Not only that but the Bill Clinton signed was never really implimented in full.

The Bush SEC made sure of that.

 

[JRK]

These people you refer to as lackeys knew what they were doing. The thing was it was legal & always has been. This goes the same for the people who wanted to use their home for an ATM machine. They were willing take the risk, cash out of their home & invest it or start a business. Or they just wanted to live beyond their means.

The thing Clinton did was removed the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers to "Qualified Investors". (This is why Wallstreet Bankers are not in jail) That also proved disastrous to State & Local Pensions. Wallstreet had a license to steal from "Qualified Investors" because they were considered rich & smart enough to make wise decisions with their money.

The problem is the Clinton law allowed the risk to be spread around the world. The system would still have crashed even if the home mortgage broker was forced to act in a fiduciary manor while Wallstreet was not. The Wallstreet banks make money on the trade & would have found ways to sell crap into the system as long as they were not bound by fiduciary responsibility or the ones taking all the risk. Making the risk global as Clinton did, made Wallstreet banks to big to fail. We are now systemically tied to the whims of Madmen Wallstreet Bankers.

Bill Clinton Socailized Wallstreet Bankers Losses while the Profits are still Privatized.

Bush increased the risk by increasing leverage & assisting down payments. The Fed lowered rates to low. These things only change the size, but the Socialized Wallstreet Losses while the Profits are Privatized would have still caused this problem regardless. Risk spreading is retarded! It is like sending a Gambler into a Casino with the Nations Money! He could win big & we would not notice or he could lose everyones money.

I agree with most
You make allot of correct points

The fed lowered the prime was a 9-11 event
Greenspan acted foolishly by keeping it low to long

the assisted down payment event still would have been ok if the people using that would have been bound to a fixed rate along with a monthly payment they could afford

Thats not GWB fault

One more thing. How many of these homes that (securities) went south are by people who just walked away from them?
There are allot of assumptions being made that are not facts int this entire fiasco
and as Obama did
"never allow a crises to go to waste"
800 billion dollars later we have lost millions of jobs

Sure it was. There was a big financial meltdown early in his administration. The whole Arthur Anderson debacle was a clear indication that something was very wrong..and something needed to be done. GWB didn't do anything.

what was GWB suppose to do?
tell the banks who they could loan money to?
tell the Investment banks how to invest there money?
Those securities carried a A+ rating
At what point in this mess do you, the liberal understand that this was a free market train wreck and that all the legislation in the world could not stop it?
at what point do you legislate morality? When the security goes to junk status?
If so why is it Obama has not put Glass Se gall back in place?
and before you talk about wall street reform, We can talk about Sarbanes Oxley all day also
There
This is not rocket science

you happy?

 

[JRK]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

First of all, TBTF banks existed long before Clinton came around - you might remember that adminstrations prior to Clinton had bailed out numerous banks.

Second, Gramm, Leach and Bliley (authors of the financial services modernization act) were all Republicans.

And the CFMA? Mr. Ewing (R), Mr. Combest (R), Mr. Leach (R), Mr. Lafalce (D), and Mr. Bliley (R)

The Gramm, Leach, Bliley bill was bi partisan and signed by Bill Clinton


Bipartisan Banking Deregulation Produced Current Economic Crisis | Xenia Citizen Journal
Bipartisan Banking Deregulation Produced Current Economic Crisis
Posted on February 27, 2009 by Editor| 1 Comment
Pres. Obama and other politicians blame our current economic crisis on Congressional deregulation of the banking system. A 2008 article published in OpenSecrets.org explains what they mean, why Capitol Hill politicians did it, and who benefited.

The last time Congress seriously debated how to regulate the financial industry, the result was legislation that allowed the nation’s largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A look back at that debate, which was over the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, reveals that campaign contributions may have influenced the votes of politicians who, a decade later, are now grappling with the implosion of the giant banks they helped to foster.

Looking back at the vote on the 1999 act, and the campaign contributions that led up to it, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found that those members of Congress who supported lifting Depression-era restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies received more than twice as much money from those interests than did those lawmakers who opposed the measure.

 

[JRK]

The Bush SEC set this all in motion.

Denying that is denying facts

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

I would think you could get away with saying that the Arthur Anderson debacle was the result in some part of the removal of Glass-Steagall act, when Clinton he signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. But once after that happened..

GW Bush owned the whole pickle.

No GWB made this law after that happened
Sarbanes–Oxley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sarbanes-Oxley Act)
Sarbanes

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D–MD) and Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R–OH-4), the co-sponsors of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act.
Accountancy
Key concepts
Accountant · Accounting period · Bookkeeping · Cash and accrual basis · Cash flow management · Chart of accounts · Constant Purchasing Power Accounting · Cost of goods sold · Credit terms · Debits and credits · Double-entry system · Fair value accounting · FIFO & LIFO · GAAP / IFRS · General ledger · Historical cost · Matching principle · Revenue recognition · Trial balance
Fields of accounting
Cost · Financial · Forensic · Fund · Management · Mergers and Acquisitions · Tax
Financial statements
Statement of Financial Position · Statement of cash flows · Statement of changes in equity · Statement of comprehensive income · Notes · MD&A · XBRL
Auditing
Auditor's report · Financial audit · GAAS / ISA · Internal audit · Sarbanes–Oxley Act
Accounting qualifications
CA · CPA · CCA · CGA · CMA
This box: view · talk · edit
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House) and commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002, which set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).
The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
It does not apply to privately held companies. The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the SEC, led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.
The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."[1]
Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Supporters contend the legislation was necessary and has played a useful role in restoring public confidence in the nation's capital markets by, among other things, strengthening corporate accounting controls. Opponents of the bill claim it has reduced America's international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, saying SOX has introduced an overly complex regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets.[2] Proponents of the measure say that SOX has been a "godsend" for improving the confidence of fund managers and other investors with regard to the veracity of corporate financial statements.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 Outlines
2 History and context: events contributing to the adoption of Sarbanes–Oxley
2.1 Timeline and passage of Sarbanes–Oxley
3 Analyzing the cost-benefits of Sarbanes–Oxley
3.1 Compliance costs
3.2 Benefits to firms and investors
3.3 Effects on exchange listing choice of non-US companies
4 Implementation of key provisions
4.1 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 302: Disclosure controls
4.2 Sarbanes-Oxley Section 401: Disclosures in periodic reports (Off-balance sheet items)
4.3 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 404: Assessment of internal control
4.4 Sarbanes–Oxley 404 and smaller public companies
4.5 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 802: Criminal penalties for violation of SOX
4.6 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 1107: Criminal penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers
5 Criticism
6 Praise
7 Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis
8 Legal challenges
9 Legislative information
10 See also
10.1 Similar laws in other countries
11 References
12 External links
[edit]

 

[KissMy]

And the CFMA? Mr. Ewing (R), Mr. Combest (R), Mr. Leach (R), Mr. Lafalce (D), and Mr. Bliley (R)

Bill Clinton signed that CFMA disaster into law also. That created the "Enron Loophole"

Lets see:

1. - Bill Clinton pushed Fannie & Freddie to increase its Subprime Lending. This lowered all bank lending standards.

2. - Bill Clinton Signed into Law the S.900 GLB Act Deregulation that allowed bankers to get rich packaging shit & labeling it AAA prime.

3. - Bill Clinton Signed the CFMA into Law creating the Enron Loophole.

4. - Bill Clinton Signed into Law the largest Fed Government Pay Raise in History.

YES - Billy is 4 for 4 & Batting a Thousand!

 

[Sallow]

I agree with most
You make allot of correct points

The fed lowered the prime was a 9-11 event
Greenspan acted foolishly by keeping it low to long

the assisted down payment event still would have been ok if the people using that would have been bound to a fixed rate along with a monthly payment they could afford

Thats not GWB fault

One more thing. How many of these homes that (securities) went south are by people who just walked away from them?
There are allot of assumptions being made that are not facts int this entire fiasco
and as Obama did
"never allow a crises to go to waste"
800 billion dollars later we have lost millions of jobs

Sure it was. There was a big financial meltdown early in his administration. The whole Arthur Anderson debacle was a clear indication that something was very wrong..and something needed to be done. GWB didn't do anything.

what was GWB suppose to do?
tell the banks who they could loan money to?
tell the Investment banks how to invest there money?
Those securities carried a A+ rating
At what point in this mess do you, the liberal understand that this was a free market train wreck and that all the legislation in the world could not stop it?
at what point do you legislate morality? When the security goes to junk status?
If so why is it Obama has not put Glass Se gall back in place?
and before you talk about wall street reform, We can talk about Sarbanes Oxley all day also
There
This is not rocket science

you happy?

Outrageous nonsense.

 

[Sallow]

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

I would think you could get away with saying that the Arthur Anderson debacle was the result in some part of the removal of Glass-Steagall act, when Clinton he signed Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. But once after that happened..

GW Bush owned the whole pickle.

No GWB made this law after that happened
Sarbanes–Oxley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sarbanes-Oxley Act)
Sarbanes

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D–MD) and Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R–OH-4), the co-sponsors of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act.
Accountancy
Key concepts
Accountant · Accounting period · Bookkeeping · Cash and accrual basis · Cash flow management · Chart of accounts · Constant Purchasing Power Accounting · Cost of goods sold · Credit terms · Debits and credits · Double-entry system · Fair value accounting · FIFO & LIFO · GAAP / IFRS · General ledger · Historical cost · Matching principle · Revenue recognition · Trial balance
Fields of accounting
Cost · Financial · Forensic · Fund · Management · Mergers and Acquisitions · Tax
Financial statements
Statement of Financial Position · Statement of cash flows · Statement of changes in equity · Statement of comprehensive income · Notes · MD&A · XBRL
Auditing
Auditor's report · Financial audit · GAAS / ISA · Internal audit · Sarbanes–Oxley Act
Accounting qualifications
CA · CPA · CCA · CGA · CMA
This box: view · talk · edit
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House) and commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002, which set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. It is named after sponsors U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH).
The bill was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom. These scandals, which cost investors billions of dollars when the share prices of affected companies collapsed, shook public confidence in the nation's securities markets.
It does not apply to privately held companies. The act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law. Harvey Pitt, the 26th chairman of the SEC, led the SEC in the adoption of dozens of rules to implement the Sarbanes–Oxley Act. It created a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure.
The act was approved by the House by a vote of 423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstaining and by the Senate with a vote of 99 in favor, 1 abstaining. President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt."[1]
Debate continues over the perceived benefits and costs of SOX. Supporters contend the legislation was necessary and has played a useful role in restoring public confidence in the nation's capital markets by, among other things, strengthening corporate accounting controls. Opponents of the bill claim it has reduced America's international competitive edge against foreign financial service providers, saying SOX has introduced an overly complex regulatory environment into U.S. financial markets.[2] Proponents of the measure say that SOX has been a "godsend" for improving the confidence of fund managers and other investors with regard to the veracity of corporate financial statements.[3]
Contents [hide]
1 Outlines
2 History and context: events contributing to the adoption of Sarbanes–Oxley
2.1 Timeline and passage of Sarbanes–Oxley
3 Analyzing the cost-benefits of Sarbanes–Oxley
3.1 Compliance costs
3.2 Benefits to firms and investors
3.3 Effects on exchange listing choice of non-US companies
4 Implementation of key provisions
4.1 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 302: Disclosure controls
4.2 Sarbanes-Oxley Section 401: Disclosures in periodic reports (Off-balance sheet items)
4.3 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 404: Assessment of internal control
4.4 Sarbanes–Oxley 404 and smaller public companies
4.5 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 802: Criminal penalties for violation of SOX
4.6 Sarbanes–Oxley Section 1107: Criminal penalties for retaliation against whistleblowers
5 Criticism
6 Praise
7 Benefits of Sarbanes Oxley Act on a long term basis
8 Legal challenges
9 Legislative information
10 See also
10.1 Similar laws in other countries
11 References
12 External links
[edit]

And it was enforced..when?

 

[Truthmatters]

So Bill Clinton creating the "Shadow Banking System" removing the fiduciary responsibility of Wallstreet Bankers, creating "To Big To Fail" Wallstreet banks & insurance companies spreading their risk to all of us had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Do you like to pay for business risk & not receive any profits?

First of all, TBTF banks existed long before Clinton came around - you might remember that adminstrations prior to Clinton had bailed out numerous banks.

Second, Gramm, Leach and Bliley (authors of the financial services modernization act) were all Republicans.

And the CFMA? Mr. Ewing (R), Mr. Combest (R), Mr. Leach (R), Mr. Lafalce (D), and Mr. Bliley (R)

The Gramm, Leach, Bliley bill was bi partisan and signed by Bill Clinton


Bipartisan Banking Deregulation Produced Current Economic Crisis | Xenia Citizen Journal
Bipartisan Banking Deregulation Produced Current Economic Crisis
Posted on February 27, 2009 by Editor| 1 Comment
Pres. Obama and other politicians blame our current economic crisis on Congressional deregulation of the banking system. A 2008 article published in OpenSecrets.org explains what they mean, why Capitol Hill politicians did it, and who benefited.

The last time Congress seriously debated how to regulate the financial industry, the result was legislation that allowed the nation’s largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A look back at that debate, which was over the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, reveals that campaign contributions may have influenced the votes of politicians who, a decade later, are now grappling with the implosion of the giant banks they helped to foster.

Looking back at the vote on the 1999 act, and the campaign contributions that led up to it, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found that those members of Congress who supported lifting Depression-era restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies received more than twice as much money from those interests than did those lawmakers who opposed the measure.

And he signed it and dems signed on because of the protections written into the law which the Bush SEC never implimented.

How can you hold anyone but the Bush appointed SEC accountable for what the Bush SEC did?