Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (55554)	11/16/2008 7:40:23 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224648

RMF...I did read through that article and it does help in understanding changes made over the years to banking policy. However changes to policy is not the cause for corrupt people taking advantage of their positions..democrat or republican. In the case of sub prime it was for the most part democrat appointiees who were responsible for overseeing regulation. Even when confronted with evidence that fannie was it trouble they refused to act. Does not matter if it were dem or repub. those that were responsible and profited financially in any way should be in jail. And it appears that the author of the article you posted is a strong suppoter of the democrats...not that that makes the article dishonest...just that it helps to know where the story comes from. When the law makers police themselves they can get away with most anything. raines...90 million dollars. This is of interest..again written words but again helps explain just how the subprime mess came about. I will hi-lite the area I refer to. Not crazy about the source but likely accurate in this case. The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Va), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. [2] On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[3] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining) [4] [5] The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[4] [6] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [7] and by the House 362-57.[8] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[9] en.wikipedia.org