Talk:Enron loophole

Energy Unassessed

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Unassessed

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]