amerikat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-29-08 09:13 PM
Original message |
So the bailout bill is an amendment to a bill from 2007? |
|
Cspan says HR 3997(bailout) is an amendment to a 2007 bill meant to replace a bill from 1986. I am totally confused. Are there any parliamentary procedure experts in the house. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xmlhttp://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3997/showhelp me out here before my head explodes.
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-29-08 09:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
There was a provision in it that amended a law from 2006 that was itself an amendment to a 1986 law.
It involved the averaged reserve rate required for transaction accounts (checking, etc.), allowing it to fall to zero for given periods of time. The amendment would have changed the enactment date of this provision from Oct. 1, 2011 to Oct. 1, 2008.
|
amerikat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-29-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Thanks. Is it just quicker to get an amendment to an old bill to the |
|
floor for a vote than a new bill? Doesn't have to go thru committee?
|
RoyGBiv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-29-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Well, that's a complex question ... |
|
This sort of thing is standard operating procedure for Congress. Bills that go through committees and then are voted upon are often filled with language like, "subsection (C) of Section (1) is thus amended ..." It's what a lot of legislation does, amend established US code.
They have regulatory laws on the books already. It's simply more efficient to change certain aspects of the existing structure than to author an entirely new set of codes.
FWIW, this particular provision of the now failed bailout stunned me. I wasn't even aware of the move to a zero reserve system to be implemented in 2011. That provision passed *unanimously*. The enactment date being moved up to Wednesday is curious.
I did a little research on it and don't have any good answers. I can see why it was desired, but I'm uncommitted on whether it is a good or bad thing, but I'm leaning toward bad. The UK and Canada operate on a zero reserve system, and their banks tend to hold 6% or so in reserve. It's partly about the Fed and easing money flow, but I'm not versed enough in the intricacies of it to know how it all works.
|
amerikat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-29-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Thanks.....you have enlightened me on the particular bill. |
|
How sausages are made will be left for another discussion. Thanks RoyGBiv.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |