Wall Street bill appears to have vote...

Wall Street bill appears to have votes to pass

There are 44 comments on the 98.9 KKZX story from Jul 13, 2010, titled Wall Street bill appears to have votes to pass. In it, 98.9 KKZX reports that:

Senate Democrats on Tuesday appeared to nail down the votes needed to approve a historic overhaul of U.S. financial regulations and moved to set up a final vote on it by the end of the week.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 98.9 KKZX.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Make America Great Again”

Since: Jun 07

Bring Obama Back!

#1 Jul 13, 2010
Great news for the country and President Obama; a great first step to reverse republican policies that resulted in the collapse of our economy during the Bush years.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#2 Jul 13, 2010
I see they will institutionalize Too Big to Fail. Why?

That was the reason for the Bail Outs. Now it will continue!

What in the Hell is Wrong with these turds in Congress!

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#3 Jul 13, 2010
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
Great news for the country and President Obama; a great first step to reverse republican policies that resulted in the collapse of our economy during the Bush years.
Amen, now if we can create stronger regulations to protect our environment from big oil.

70 Million dollar liability is worthless.

Also, thinking BP would voluntarily do the right thing with all the record level taxcuts they got was foolish.

Next time we require backups. I don't care how many Dolphins McCain claims to have seen swimming around deep water oil rigs. I bet you won't find any now.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#4 Jul 13, 2010
How bad can this be?

Was it written by Scumbagocrats? I guess that is a terrible hint.

Do you realize that this so called reform does NOT even have most of the rules Written In?

Do you realize that these RULES will be written at some other time?

Are you Kidding Me!

The Rules will be written in the Future by people that aren't even elected or accountable.

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#5 Jul 13, 2010
Wait till LaffyLiberal starts posting. He wants the Feds to have the power to "dissolve" large banks when the Feds deem they are too big.

Thats about as marxist as it gets. Although he doesn't know it is. LOL
The laughing liberal wrote:
Guess who Doesn't Get Broken Up?
- Banks deemed Too Big To Fail.
Talk about a structural failure of this Bill!!!!! IDIOTS!

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#6 Jul 13, 2010
The laughing liberal wrote:
I see they will institutionalize Too Big to Fail. Why?
That was the reason for the Bail Outs. Now it will continue!
What in the Hell is Wrong with these turds in Congress!
Speak of the devil. Glad you made us.

Tell us how you want the Feds to be able to dissolve banks the Feds declare are too big.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#7 Jul 13, 2010
Please ask some of the smegmabreath Dems blindly defending this POS legislation if they realize there AREN'T Regulations written into the bill.

It's basically a hollow shell.

Only an Idiot would give these Turds ANOTHER Blank Check!

READ THE BILL and these Idiotic Commissions it will set up.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#8 Jul 13, 2010
A Diversity Commission mandated in the Financial reform?

Could it be?

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#9 Jul 13, 2010
OneRyder wrote:
Wait till LaffyLiberal starts posting. He wants the Feds to have the power to "dissolve" large banks when the Feds deem they are too big.
Thats about as marxist as it gets. Although he doesn't know it is. LOL
<quoted text>
You don't even know the difference between Dissolve and Breaking Up means. Geesh! IDIOT!

Google "Standard Oil" dipsh*t.

Breaking up into smaller pieces is what you do when something is TOO BIG.

“Kiss Me You Fool!”

Since: Jan 08

Atlanta via Brooklyn NY

#10 Jul 13, 2010
The laughing liberal wrote:
I see they will institutionalize Too Big to Fail. Why?
That was the reason for the Bail Outs. Now it will continue!
What in the Hell is Wrong with these turds in Congress!
Tell us how giving the Feds the power to dissolve private corps for getting to big will impact business investment and growth.

Can you imagine a business being willing to keep investing knowing that eventually the Fed Agents will come in and say "you're now to big, we gotta dissolve it..sorry investors, you lose"

Talk about Marxist. No repub or libertarian would ever agree with you.

Hence, no Repub or Libertarian is pushing for such Federal powers.

Yet he calls Obama Amin Marxist....absolutely clueless

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#11 Jul 13, 2010
OneRyder wrote:
<quoted text>
Speak of the devil. Glad you made us.
Tell us how you want the Feds to be able to dissolve banks the Feds declare are too big.
Please learn the difference between "Dissolve" and "Break Up" before asking another stupid question.

Hey, your mommies calling you in for dinner & a bath.... See Ya

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#12 Jul 13, 2010
Greenspan Says U.S. Should Consider Breaking Up Large Banks

By Michael McKee and Scott Lanman
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg)

U.S. regulators should consider breaking up large financial institutions considered “too big to fail,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said.

Those banks have an implicit subsidy allowing them to borrow at lower cost because lenders believe the government will always step in to guarantee their obligations. That squeezes out competition and creates a danger to the financial system, Greenspan told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

“If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big,” Greenspan said today.“In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil -- so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do.”

At one point, no bank was considered too big to fail, Greenspan said. That changed after the Treasury Department under then-Secretary Hank Paulson effectively nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Treasury and Fed bailed out Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc.

“It’s going to be very difficult to repair their credibility on that because when push came to shove, they didn’t stand up,” Greenspan said.

Fed officials have suggested imposing a tax or requiring higher capital ratios on larger banks to ensure the firms’ safety and reduce some of the competitive advantage from the implied subsidy. Greenspan said that won’t work.

“I don’t think merely raising the fees or capital on large institutions or taxing them is enough,” Greenspan said.“I think they’ll absorb that, they’ll work with that, and it’s totally inefficient and they’ll still be using the savings.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Milan, MI

#13 Jul 13, 2010
Hopefully dumb ryder grows a brain someday.
six is good

Roy, WA

#14 Jul 13, 2010
i still want my and all taxpayers money back from wall street douche bags that interwove bs derivatives with old folks and government pension while getting fat on commissions
Seeking truth

Dearborn, MI

#15 Jul 14, 2010
Laughing Stock LOVES Wall Street and the Robber Barons.
Conservaturds

Lihue, HI

#16 Jul 14, 2010
six is good wrote:
i still want my and all taxpayers money back from wall street douche bags that interwove bs derivatives with old folks and government pension while getting fat on commissions
As do we, but we'll never see a dime and be right back in that situation if Republicans gain control of Congress.
Robert

Bronx, NY

#17 Jul 14, 2010
Here;s another matter that has not received much media attention;



May God bless and have mercy on us.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#19 Jul 14, 2010
Obama faces growing credibility crisis

By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: July 13 2010

Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Opinion:‘Hell no’ is not a platform for power - Jul-13.In depth: The Obama presidency - May-23.Obama attacked over business regulation - Jul-12.Video: Donohue on business regulation - Jul-12.Global Insight: US financial reform - Jul-12.White House taps Lew for budget office - Jul-13..In the past few days polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over previously safe Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Indeed, given the uniformly negative direction in the numbers, it is now quite possible the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Add to that the continuing woes of Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, where the Republican party’s recent nomination of Sharron Angle, a far-right and highly eccentric Tea Party supporter, appear to have had no positive effect on Mr Reid’s prospects, and the Grand Old party has a good shot at taking control of both houses of Congress. Worse for Mr Obama, political scientists say that at this stage in the calendar, there is almost nothing he can do about it.

“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House.“Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/434315b2-8ea6-11df-...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#20 Jul 14, 2010
Seeking truth wrote:
Laughing Stock LOVES Wall Street and the Robber Barons.
Is Goldman Sachs Obama's Enron?- No, it's worse

By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
04/20/10

Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org .

President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton.

In 2002, the New York Times wrote: "President Bush is seeking to play down his relationship with Enron's embattled chairman, Kenneth L. Lay. But their ties are broad and deep and go back many years, and the relationship has been beneficial to both." (h/t Lachlan Markey)

But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama's $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That's also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.

It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron.

Goldman is being sued for civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission for deliberately putting unwitting clients on the wrong side of a mortgage security trade that had been designed to fail.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blo...

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Canton, OH

#21 Jul 14, 2010
Seeking truth wrote:
Laughing Stock LOVES Wall Street and the Robber Barons.
Obamafraud with Goldman Sachs

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
April 21, 2010

There's a rule of thumb in Washington: Whenever politicians open up a legislative or regulatory debate, the side with the best lobbyist usually wins. We saw it last year, as the drug industry outspent every other industry in America on lobbying and then ran the table in the health care bill that President Obama portrayed as a broadside against the special interests. Goldman's clout is not measured so much in terms of lobbying dollars -- though I'm sure the firm pays generous fees to its K Street soldiers, notably Dick Gephardt, John Breaux, and Tony Podesta -- but in its direct pipeline to the corridors of power.

Greg Craig, Obama's first White House counsel, has joined Goldman, we learned this week. He may not have too much pull in the West Wing, which drove him out for hewing too close to Obama's campaign promises, but as a former insider he will provide valuable intelligence to the world's largest investment bank.

Rahm Emanuel, White House chief of staff, was paid $35,000 as a consultant to Goldman while also working as Bill Clinton's top fundraiser. Obama's fundraiser and economic adviser Warren Buffett is very long on Goldman, having bet on them in 2008 in the expectation of a bailout. Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was a Goldman Sachs lobbyist until months before joining Team Obama.

What does that add up to? Getting a hand in making the regulations:

Politico quoted a Goldman lobbyist Monday saying, "We're not against regulation. We're for regulation. We partner with regulators." At least three times in Goldman's conference call Tuesday, spokesmen trumpeted the firm's support for more federal control.

... Goldman's annual report explicitly endorsed stricter federal capital and liquidity requirements. Goldman reported on the conference call that it holds 15 percent "Tier 1 capital," meaning it is very liquid and not very risky. Goldman can play it safe, you see, without needing a regulation. But regulations prevent smaller competitors from taking the risks needed to compete with Goldman (and every competitor is smaller).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Go...

IMPEACH THE MAGGOT!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christopher Dodd Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Essential Politics: Bush coming to Brentwood to... (Nov '15) Dec '15 goonsquad 7
News Head of movie association predicts record year ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 short 1
News Schumer-Pelosi: A Partnership Three Decades in ... (Apr '15) Apr '15 Memo From Turner 7
News Positions count, but style wins (Jan '08) May '14 Top Of Mom 2
News Hotelier Chatwal Pleads Guilty to Campaign Fraud (Apr '14) Apr '14 see the light 1
News Democrats want pay limits, loan aid in bailout (Sep '08) Mar '14 Lief CHIEF 73
News Democrats want pay limits, loan aid in bailout (Sep '08) Mar '14 Lilla 8
More from around the web