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

[JRK]

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?

Have any of you ever thought that this law may have had more to do with this crises than anything?
I mean everyone was screaming how could this happen?
yet reporting was spot on

This has been my point

These events started out nice and legal
remained nice and legal
within months of the sub prime going up and the housing market starting to collapse it was over
Securities that where rated A and above went to junk over night

Liberals have no desire to resolve anything, they want to hate
blame, stay mad

This is a simple event that to prevent it is simple
separate wall street and main street when it comes to a mortgage
The deposit banker make his choices based on whats best for his deposit bank and the investment banker make his choices based on whats best for his investment bank

 

[editec]

I am so sick of hearing the OK Libs lets hear it
what did GWB do to cause any of it?

I do not know (and neither do you incidently) a SINGLE "liberal: who blames "all of this on W"

Off the top of my head I'd say his CONTRIBUTION to the economic meltdown was:

1 the pointless and costly invasion of Iraq

2. His tax cuts for billionaires

3. NOt supporting a wide variety of regulating bodies that might have mitigated some of the excesses on wall street and the banking industries.


But as to W being the sole cause of the meltdown?

No thinking person assumes that silly notion.

But just keep fighting those straw men you create if it amuses you, Lad.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did the Bush SEC not fully impliment the law??????????

 

[Sallow]

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?

Have any of you ever thought that this law may have had more to do with this crises than anything?
I mean everyone was screaming how could this happen?
yet reporting was spot on

This has been my point

These events started out nice and legal
remained nice and legal
within months of the sub prime going up and the housing market starting to collapse it was over
Securities that where rated A and above went to junk over night

Liberals have no desire to resolve anything, they want to hate
blame, stay mad

This is a simple event that to prevent it is simple
separate wall street and main street when it comes to a mortgage
The deposit banker make his choices based on whats best for his deposit bank and the investment banker make his choices based on whats best for his investment bank

Are you fucking kidding me? The way our financial markets function is basically based on trustworthy secure trading and banking. Take that away and there is panic...and/or people will go else where to do their business.

The problems happened because of lax regulation and poor funding of regulators. What "liberals" and perhaps most of the world..want..is that to change.

MarketWatch should not have 2 measly servers watching billions of trades.
SEC and the IRS should have an adequate number of employees to follow up on each and every case.

 

[JRK]

And it was enforced..when?

Have any of you ever thought that this law may have had more to do with this crises than anything?
I mean everyone was screaming how could this happen?
yet reporting was spot on

This has been my point

These events started out nice and legal
remained nice and legal
within months of the sub prime going up and the housing market starting to collapse it was over
Securities that where rated A and above went to junk over night

Liberals have no desire to resolve anything, they want to hate
blame, stay mad

This is a simple event that to prevent it is simple
separate wall street and main street when it comes to a mortgage
The deposit banker make his choices based on whats best for his deposit bank and the investment banker make his choices based on whats best for his investment bank

Are you fucking kidding me? The way our financial markets function is basically based on trustworthy secure trading and banking. Take that away and there is panic...and/or people will go else where to do their business.

The problems happened because of lax regulation and poor funding of regulators. What "liberals" and perhaps most of the world..want..is that to change.

MarketWatch should not have 2 measly servers watching billions of trades.
SEC and the IRS should have an adequate number of employees to follow up on each and every case.

Prior to 1999 investment banks as well as
never mind, they can say it better than I can
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]

Events following repeal
The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.[22] Elizabeth Warren,[23] author and one of the five outside experts who constitute the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has said that the repeal of this act contributed to the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009.[24][25] Others have debated what role the repeal may have played in the financial crisis.[8][26][27][28][29]
The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just five percent of all mortgage lending.[citation needed] By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30 percent.[citation needed] This correlation is not necessarily an indication of causation however, as there are several other significant events that have impacted the sub-prime market during that time. These include the adoption of mark-to-market accounting, implementation of the Basel Accords and the rise of adjustable rate mortgages.[30]
[edit]

do your DD!!!!!!
Glass

 

[8537]

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.

So a bill sponsored by three Republicans is now a bipartisan bill, but everything done after Jan 20th 2007 is all the Dems fault?

I'd act surprised you'd make such a claim, but I'm not.

 

[Truthmatters]

They also like to claim the surpluses in the 90s while simultaneously denying they exsisted

 

[8537]

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.

YES - Billy is 3 for 3 & Batting a Thousand!

1...Lowered all bank lending standards? Please explain how nondepository institutions were forced to lower their lending standards.

and the other two...nothing warms the heart more than rightwingers inadvertently admitting that deregulation created this mess.

 

[8537]

Have any of you ever thought that this law may have had more to do with this crises than anything?
I mean everyone was screaming how could this happen?
yet reporting was spot on

This has been my point

These events started out nice and legal
remained nice and legal
within months of the sub prime going up and the housing market starting to collapse it was over
Securities that where rated A and above went to junk over night

Liberals have no desire to resolve anything, they want to hate
blame, stay mad

This is a simple event that to prevent it is simple
separate wall street and main street when it comes to a mortgage
The deposit banker make his choices based on whats best for his deposit bank and the investment banker make his choices based on whats best for his investment bank

Are you fucking kidding me? The way our financial markets function is basically based on trustworthy secure trading and banking. Take that away and there is panic...and/or people will go else where to do their business.

The problems happened because of lax regulation and poor funding of regulators. What "liberals" and perhaps most of the world..want..is that to change.

MarketWatch should not have 2 measly servers watching billions of trades.
SEC and the IRS should have an adequate number of employees to follow up on each and every case.

Prior to 1999 investment banks as well as
never mind, they can say it better than I can

People who run banks and investment firms aren't stupid. The wall between investment and depository banking activities was well-breached before FSMA. FSMA simply codified it - in other words, as often happens, the financial sector was years ahead of its supervisors.

 

[JRK]

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.

So a bill sponsored by three Republicans is now a bipartisan bill, but everything done after Jan 20th 2007 is all the Dems fault?

I'd act surprised you'd make such a claim, but I'm not.

This thread was a simple question that no one could really answer
Now you claim that I am blaming any-one?
If the govt had anything to do with this event, as your side claims its all the govt fault, the GOP side of the govt. then all I can do after a while is present you what the govt has done that could effect those events
By far the biggest event occurred in 1999 and was bi partisan when it made it to its final draft

The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Financial Crisis

Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act

By WILLIAM KAUFMAN

If you're looking for a major cause of the current banking meltdown, you need seek no farther than the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The Glass-Steagall Act, passed in 1933, mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation. It worked fine for fifty years until the banking industry began lobbying for its repeal during the 1980s, the go-go years of Reaganesque market fundamentalism, an outlook embraced wholeheartedly by mainstream Democrats under the rubric "neoliberalism."

The main cheerleader for the repeal was Phil Gramm, the fulsome reactionary who, until he recently shoved his foot even farther into his mouth than usual, was McCain's chief economic advisor.

But wait . . . as usual, the Democrats were eager to pile on to this reversal of New Deal regulatory progressivism -- fully 38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8), including some famous names commonly associated with "progressive" politics by the easily gulled: Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, and Schumer. And, of course, there was the inevitable shout of "yea" from the ever-servile corporate factotum Joseph Biden, Barack Obama's idea of a tribune of "change"--if by change one means erasing any lingering obstacle to corporate domination of the polity.

This disgraceful bow to the banking industry, eagerly signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999, bears a major share of responsibility for the current banking crisis. Here's the complete roll call of shame:

REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner. DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.

NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.

The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement of this invitation to plunder--the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Donkey Party favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one, so great was her fear of offending her party's corporate paymasters even though she knew passage was a sure thing.

William Kaufman: Shattering the Glass-Steagall Act

 

[Truthmatters]

If it was so popular a bill then maybe the Bush appointed SEC should have implemented the whole bill instead of holding back the protections in the bill.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.accountingweb.com/item/100642


SEC Extends Time for Banks to Comply with Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act
03/10/2005 - 16:59
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Tuesday that it issued an order further extending until Sept. 30, 2005, the compliance dates for banks with respect to certain broker registration requirements contained in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The Commission does not expect banks to develop compliance systems to meet the terms of the "broker" exceptions until the Commission amends its rules. Banks have indicated that they will need time to implement systems to ensure compliance with the new statutory requirements regarding the definition of "broker."

 

[8537]

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.

So a bill sponsored by three Republicans is now a bipartisan bill, but everything done after Jan 20th 2007 is all the Dems fault?

I'd act surprised you'd make such a claim, but I'm not.

This thread was a simple question that no one could really answer

you do this in every.thread.you.start. You pose a question, myriad people come along and provide an answer, then you claim no one could answer your question.

And that's because you're not seeking answers. Your seeking ideological confirmation. Any answer that challenges your ideology is tossed aside and the people who make such answers dismissed.

Now you claim that I am blaming any-one?

You have blamed the post-2007 Democrats on numerous occasions.

If the govt had anything to do with this event, as your side claims its all the govt fault, the GOP side of the govt. then all I can do after a while is present you what the govt has done that could effect those events

Who said it's all the government's fault? In fact, I've been very explicit in saying the exact opposite: That the government played a small window-dressing role but the private sector is primarily to blame. It's the right that is desperately trying to blame government for the excesses of the private sector.

Some lay blame at deregulation, but that's actually a critique of the private sector's ability to self-regulate, a claim made by the right for decades.

By far the biggest event occurred in 1999 and was bi partisan when it made it to its final draft

Wait, so you're back to blaming government?

Your concern is that the government didn't regulate the private sector enough?
Well, you won't find me disagreeing with that. The answer to a lack of regulation (or a lack of regulatory enforcement) isn't less regulation.

 

[Sallow]

So a bill sponsored by three Republicans is now a bipartisan bill, but everything done after Jan 20th 2007 is all the Dems fault?

I'd act surprised you'd make such a claim, but I'm not.

This thread was a simple question that no one could really answer

you do this in every.thread.you.start. You pose a question, myriad people come along and provide an answer, then you claim no one could answer your question.

And that's because you're not seeking answers. Your seeking ideological confirmation. Any answer that challenges your ideology is tossed aside and the people who make such answers dismissed.



You have blamed the post-2007 Democrats on numerous occasions.

If the govt had anything to do with this event, as your side claims its all the govt fault, the GOP side of the govt. then all I can do after a while is present you what the govt has done that could effect those events

Who said it's all the government's fault? In fact, I've been very explicit in saying the exact opposite: That the government played a small window-dressing role but the private sector is primarily to blame. It's the right that is desperately trying to blame government for the excesses of the private sector.

Some lay blame at deregulation, but that's actually a critique of the private sector's ability to self-regulate, a claim made by the right for decades.

By far the biggest event occurred in 1999 and was bi partisan when it made it to its final draft

Wait, so you're back to blaming government?

Your concern is that the government didn't regulate the private sector enough?
Well, you won't find me disagreeing with that. The answer to a lack of regulation (or a lack of regulatory enforcement) isn't less regulation.

 

[Truthmatters]

SEC Speech: SEC Initiatives Under Sarbanes-Oxley and Gramm-Leach-Bliley (C. Glassman)

Speech by SEC Commissioner:
SEC Initiatives Under Sarbanes-Oxley
and Gramm-Leach-Bliley
by
Commissioner Cynthia A. Glassman
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

ABA Trust, Wealth Management and Marketing Conference
Tampa, Florida
February 26, 2003


And it is in this spirit of "doing the right thing" that we will approach the next phase of the implementation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. As a starting point, we recognize that there are important distinctions between the main goal of banking regulation - which is safety and soundness - and the purpose of securities and broker-dealer regulation - which is investor protection. Congress' goal in enacting Gramm-Leach-Bliley was to ensure that U.S. investors receive the protections of the securities laws -- whether they purchase securities from a bank or a broker-dealer -- and the law made the Commission responsible for adopting rules that will achieve the goal of functional regulation.

When I began to work with the staff on this, the first thing I wanted to do was to improve the process and - hopefully - the outcome. The Commission's interim final rules were not well received -- an understatement, I know -- and we wanted to get back on a more positive, interactive track with the banks and the banking regulators. The problem was not just the substance of the rules, but also how we got there. To improve the process, we decided to tackle the bank dealer rules first. We reached out to the banks and held numerous meetings not just with lawyers, but with the banks' operational personnel as well to understand the practical business problems banks would face in complying with the new definition of "dealer" under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. It took us a long time to figure out what different banks do and how they do it, assess their transactions under the statutory framework, and develop proposals that would accommodate bank securities transactions.

After drafting rule proposals, the staff met with the bank industry groups and bank regulatory agencies to describe the new proposals and gauge the extent to which they met the needs of the banking industry. This process permitted the staff to make adjustments to accommodate industry concerns before presenting them to the Commission to be published for comment. On the whole, the bank representatives gave us very positive feedback. Feedback from the bank regulators was slightly less positive, but I think that everyone was pleased with our more transparent and interactive process.

 

[JRK]

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.

YES - Billy is 3 for 3 & Batting a Thousand!

1...Lowered all bank lending standards? Please explain how nondepository institutions were forced to lower their lending standards.

and the other two...nothing warms the heart more than rightwingers inadvertently admitting that deregulation created this mess.

I think what he is saying is the left blames GWB
If The govt is responsible as you claim
there it is

I have never stated that de regulation caused anything
you have

 

[JRK]

This thread was a simple question that no one could really answer

you do this in every.thread.you.start. You pose a question, myriad people come along and provide an answer, then you claim no one could answer your question.

And that's because you're not seeking answers. Your seeking ideological confirmation. Any answer that challenges your ideology is tossed aside and the people who make such answers dismissed.



You have blamed the post-2007 Democrats on numerous occasions.



Who said it's all the government's fault? In fact, I've been very explicit in saying the exact opposite: That the government played a small window-dressing role but the private sector is primarily to blame. It's the right that is desperately trying to blame government for the excesses of the private sector.

Some lay blame at deregulation, but that's actually a critique of the private sector's ability to self-regulate, a claim made by the right for decades.

By far the biggest event occurred in 1999 and was bi partisan when it made it to its final draft

Wait, so you're back to blaming government?

Your concern is that the government didn't regulate the private sector enough?
Well, you won't find me disagreeing with that. The answer to a lack of regulation (or a lack of regulatory enforcement) isn't less regulation.

you know you 2 are really in a place that desperation is the only word i can use

You blame govt?
I say ok, lets blame the new congress of 07. why not?
makes as much sense as you do

More regulation?
why not
so where is it?
this mess is still here

 

[JRK]

Guys you cannot escape the fact that if it was a govt caused event as you claim
1999
Bill Clinton

More regulation?
where is it?

iots that simple

 

[8537]

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.

YES - Billy is 3 for 3 & Batting a Thousand!

1...Lowered all bank lending standards? Please explain how nondepository institutions were forced to lower their lending standards.

and the other two...nothing warms the heart more than rightwingers inadvertently admitting that deregulation created this mess.

I think what he is saying is the left blames GWB
If The govt is responsible as you claim
there it is

I have never stated that de regulation caused anything
you have

Let's try this one more time, shall we?

Who is claiming that government is responsible? I blame the private sector and many, maniy liberals have blamed a lack of regulatory enforcement by government - which is another way of blaming the private sector for failing to control its own excesses.

If you blame the FSMA and CFMA, you're blaming deregulation - although I'm not surprised you miss that. The whole point of the FSMA and CFMA was to deregulate the financial sector.

Now, remind me: which party believes that the answer is less regulation?

 

[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!

1...Lowered all bank lending standards? Please explain how nondepository institutions were forced to lower their lending standards.

and the other two...nothing warms the heart more than rightwingers inadvertently admitting that deregulation created this mess.

Clinton pushing Fannie & Freddie to buy subprime loans. This increased demand for subprime loans among Wallstreet Banks. Increased Government Sponsoring of these loans increased the rating of subprime.

I never said Clinton's deregulation did not cause the problem. I said it was not caused by the lack of increased regulation of Mortgage Brokers as Truthmatters espouses. The financial system operated fine prior to Clinton's deregulation even though Mortgage Brokers were always unregulated.

Deregulated Shadow Bankers also over lent to risky Commercial Property, Commercial Paper, Student Loans, Auto Loans, Business Loans & Credit Cards. A regulated Mortgage Broker could not prevent those crappy loans.