Seriously, fuck these guys- House repeals financial protections

Something's about to go down and they're getting the golden parachutes ready.

EDIT: Also, "our government" is hardly ours anymore. It doesn't matter who you vote for--you lose.

Also also, last bit of his video, we're gonna stop corruption? Yeah, right.
 
That article doesn't really say anything about what is in the bill... Just who wrote it, and that because it was written by lobbyists, it is therefore corruption...?
 
Summary HR 992

Summary: H.R.992 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
There is one summary for this bill. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (03/06/2013)


Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act - Amends the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with respect to the prohibition against certain federal assistance to swaps entities, namely the use of any advances from specified Federal Reserve credit facilities or discount windows, or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance or guarantees, for the purpose of: (1) making any loan to, or purchasing any stock, equity interest, or debt obligation of, any swaps entity; (2) purchasing the assets of any swaps entity; (3) guaranteeing any loan or debt issuance of any swaps entity; or (4) entering into any assistance arrangement (including tax breaks), loss sharing, or profit sharing with any swaps entity.
Extends to any major swap participant or major security-based swap participant that is an uninsured U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank the exemption from the prohibition against federal assistance to swaps entities which is currently limited to any major swap participant or major security-based swap participant that is an FDIC-insured bank or savings association.
Designates both uninsured U.S. branches or agencies of a foreign bank and insured depository institutions as "covered depository institutions."
Requires any covered depository institution exempted from the prohibition to limit its swap and security-based swap activities to hedging and similar risk mitigating activities (as under current law), non-structured finance swap activities, or certain structured finance swap activities. (Defines "structured finance swap" as a swap or security-based swap based on an asset-backed security [or group or index primarily composed of asset-backed securities].)
Qualifies a structured finance swap activity for the exemption if: (1) it is undertaken for hedging or risk management purposes, or (2) each asset-backed security underlying the structured finance swap is of a credit quality and of a type or category with respect to which the prudential regulators have jointly adopted rules authorizing such a swap or security-based swap activity by covered depository institutions.
Repeals the exemption from the prohibition for any insured depository institution that limits its swap and security-based swap activities to acting as a swaps entity for: (1) swaps or security-based swaps involving rates or reference assets that are permissible for investment by a national bank; or (2) credit default swaps, including those referencing the credit risk of asset-backed securities unless they are cleared by a derivatives clearing organization or a clearing agency registered, or exempt from registration, under the Commodity Exchange Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
 
Bad legislation. Hopefully it doesn't pass the senate, or is signed by Obama. Just a nitpick, though, this hardly repeals all those laws. It creates a few loopholes in the laws, and the loopholes might be big or small, but it doesn't reverse everything.

Still bad legislation, and shouldn't have been put forth, much less approved by the house.
Yeah, I was a little over dramatic. in my post. I agree, still terrible.
 
Something's about to go down and they're getting the golden parachutes ready.

EDIT: Also, "our government" is hardly ours anymore. It doesn't matter who you vote for--you lose.

Also also, last bit of his video, we're gonna stop corruption? Yeah, right.
A year and a half later, and this guy in the OP and his friends have been busy...


--Patrick
 
Last edited:
For all the faults of Canada's system, we have a fairly simple solution to MOST of this: $1250/year per legal resident donation cap to political parties/candidates. No corporate donations of any kind. Wikipedia summary.

There's also a ban on political advertising by non-parties during the electoral cycle (40 days prior to vote date), which is controversial, and I used to be against such, but honestly it's better than the alternative which is "just fund the lobby group for 24/7 advertising since the political party has restricted funds"

The other major source is that parties also get money from the government after each election on a per-vote basis. So the more support you get each election, the more money you have for the next one. I'm personally against that, but at least it isn't a biased way of giving out money, as it is based on the official numbers of the election.

Does it address it all? No. Does it do 90% of it? Yes! Thank you Stephen Harper. (Yes it came in during his time)
 
Difference is, we have this thing called the First Amendment.
What does that have to do with legalized political bribes?[DOUBLEPOST=1431172481,1431172356][/DOUBLEPOST]
A year and a half later, and this guy and his friends have been busy...


--Patrick
I appreciate the information in the video, but I checked out their website and their plan to fix this stuff is to protest in different cities and have petitions.

That's not going to stop Congressional greed.
 
The 1st Amendment was the reason why Citizens United v. FEC is now essentially law of the land.
Right, the rationalization was that it violated the 1st Amendment, but the trouble I'm having is seeing how that makes any sense considering the contents of the 1st Amendment, and makes me wonder what the Supreme Court was getting out of it.

In fact, I feel like the ruling in a round-about way violates the 1st Amendment. The gateway for abuse by wealthy lobbyists was opened this way, but that interferes with the ability of the public to petition the government for change because our say-so is now blocked by a money wall against the public interest.
 
You know that this is a horrible bill if me, Krisken, Charlie, Gas Bandit and Steinman all agree that it's horrible.[DOUBLEPOST=1431179000,1431178947][/DOUBLEPOST]
Right, the rationalization was that it violated the 1st Amendment, but the trouble I'm having is seeing how that makes any sense considering the contents of the 1st Amendment, and makes me wonder what the Supreme Court was getting out of it.

In fact, I feel like the ruling in a round-about way violates the 1st Amendment. The gateway for abuse by wealthy lobbyists was opened this way, but that interferes with the ability of the public to petition the government for change because our say-so is now blocked by a money wall against the public interest.
But... but.... Money is free speech.
 
The Citizens United decision just stifles the free speech of actual citizens, since we don't have enough '$peech' to buy politicians.
 
Top