Talk:Enron loophole

Why does this Loophole Raise Energy Prices?

Can someone provide an explanation as to why this loophole supposedly raises energy prices? 60.242.124.184 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that. Geogene (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs update

Most people looking up this term will be primarily interested at this point in time in the effective dates of provisions in the Farm Bill which close the loophole, as the debate is about to shift to why oil prices are dropping. (71.233.204.100 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Politics removed

I have attempted to remove the blatant politics from this article itself and I have also updated the article on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These two articles should be merged. IMHO the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act" is a shining example of how broken our government became during the reign of the Gingrich Republicans and how broken it will remain so long as Republicans are tolerated in legislative positions of power. Yes Clinton signed this Republican swill into law. But he could not line item veto it and would not have been sustained the veto of the appropriations bill to which this piece of sleaze was attached. To have vetoed the entire appropriations bill with all the good stuff that was in it would have been political suicide for the Democratic Party. Such OPINIONS cannot be placed into the articles, and all stuff in the articles must have solid references. And the articles must above all be correct and truthful. I am allowed my opinions in the "discussion" pages. That is what they are for.--The Trucker (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If Barack Obama spoke about this issue, it is notable. Please do not continue to remove properly sourced text about this issue. We are trying to be as encyclopedic as possible, and only using reliable, verifiable sources. Badagnani (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write about current events there are lots of political blogs in which to do so. If you want to write about attempts to fix this mess then you can do that too. But in that case you will need to present the more of the attempts or at least more than just the one political advertisement for Obama. I have also seen claims that Democrats tried to fix it and Bush vetoed it but no sources. You might put forth a little effort in history if you want in a section so titled. The original version of the article text was also wrong in claiming that 7 USC is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Please do not reinstate your version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is notable and properly sourced from major media. Please do not state, again and again, your belief that another WP editor has a political bias of one sort of another; it's simply very rude. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we be citing Mother Jones? It seems to me that they're hardly a credible source. Izuko (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a reputable magazine. There is a difference, of course, between opinion columns and investigative reporting pieces. Badagnani (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lose the link to Mother Jones. They are an overtly political magazine with an ax to grind. Otherwise we're going to need to add rightwing mags as sources for POV balance. Better to stick with mainstream sources. Geogene (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama blurb inaccurate

As stated in the article, the Loophole was already closed by the time Obama referred to it in the somewhat vague terms politicians use (it's not like this was a cornerstone of the campaign). He mentioned that he'd "go farther," but nowhere in the source is Obama quoted as saying he word "repeal" the loophole — this wouldn't make sense, as the article clearly states that it had already been repealed. Therefore, I've corrected the inaccuracy of the blurb.—DMCer™ 11:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enron loophole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910135104/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22912_20080707.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RS22912_20080707.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)