Bend over for the "Cromnibus"

Magic9

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
#5) $479 MILLION FOR WARPLANES THAT THE PENTAGON DIDN'T ASK FOR

More F35s.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...t-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

#4) $93 MILLION CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN NUTRITION PROGRAM

Because "Fuck 'em, am I right?"

#3) NULLIFICATION OF VOTER-BACKED MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IN D.C.

A big fuck you to the 70% that voted for it. This one might not matter much

http://norton.house.gov/media-cente...house-republican-claim-that-omnibus-blocks-dc

#2) MAKE TAXPAYERS BAIL OUT BIG BANKS...AGAIN

Derivatives are back like an old friend. This will repeal the "swaps pushout rule". Thanks Citibank. Always looking out for the "people".

#1) MORE BIG MONEY IN POLITICAL ELECTIONS

Minor in light of "Citizens United", but still very telling about certain interests.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...al-clears-way-for-even-more-money-in-politics


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/omnibus-budget-deal-2014-5-worst-things_b_6307852.html

Also changing trucking regulations, reducing Pell grants, and some other good stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/12/10/3601742/cromnibus-lowlights/


People have short memories.
 
Magic9

Magic9

Plant Enthusiast
It passed. 219-206.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/11/government-shutdown-avoid_n_6312078.html

Some stuff is good, some is debatable (do we really need $5 billion for Ebola?). What fucking floors me is that the "swaps pushout rule" (Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities) repeal was snuck in as a policy rider at the last minute and survived.

Remember when we had the financial meltdown? When AIG, Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns, went down, and we as tax payers had to bail them out. The whole "Too Big To Fail"? They failed because of their derivatives (mainly credit default swaps).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/18/us-how-aig-fell-apart-idUSMAR85972720080918


So the Dodd-Frank bill tried to address this with Section 716. In a nut shell, certain high-risk swaps (most swaps, 90-95% are exempt from push out rule) would have to be moved into a different entity that was not Federally insured. This rule would not take effect until July 2015. The bank would take the risk, and if failed, the taxpayers would not be bailing them out.

The Wall Street/Big Banks didn't care for the rule. It only applies to 5-10% of their swaps, but that's between $7-$14 trillion dollars. In May of 2013, the bank lobbyist tried to push through a bill that would exempt even more than the 90-95% already exempted. It passed the House, but died in the Senate.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/

Between campaign and lobbying money, it comes to about $1.8 million per day from the financial sector. That's a lot of influence. 54 out of 62 CitiGroup lobbyists have had government jobs (Trent Lott anyone?)
http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/201...on-for-2014-election-cycle-1-8-million-a-day/

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000071

On Tuesday, a policy rider was snuck in the spending bill that "effectively lets in nearly all swaps activities and only bans structured-finance swaps that aren’t designed as hedges and have poor credit quality." JPMorgans CEO personally called lawmakers to voice his support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../the-item-that-is-blowing-up-the-budget-deal/


It went through (along with tripling the cap individuals can donate to a campaign and underfunding the CFTC which oversees financial regulations). So even the riskiest of risks, can still be Federally insured against loss. That means the tax payers are now on the hook, (again, still) for high risk financial practices. The exact same financial practices that tanked us in the first place. We couldn't even keep this small part of financial reform long enough for it to go into effect. They get all the benefits, and we as tax payers share the risk.

TL;DR A weak provision to protect tax payers from extra risky financial practices is gutted before it takes effect by an unrelated policy rider (written by lobbyists) inserted into a must pass spending bill with no chance for debate.

---------------------

Fun reading

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014...s-market-as-congress-tussles-over-dodd-frank/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/...-planned-roll-back-of-namesake-financial-law/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists

http://baselinescenario.com/2014/12...h-out-requirements-section-716-of-dodd-frank/


And if you're really into it, check out how the derivatives market became unregulated. Oddly, through an unrelated policy rider that was slipped in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/how-congress-rushed-a-bil_b_181926.html

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act
 
t-dub

t-dub

Vapor Sloth
Magic9 said:
And if you're really into it, check out how the derivatives market became unregulated
Click to expand...
The 1.5 quadrillion $$$ time bomb . . . :shit:

sdfsdffsddfsdfsdsdf.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom