Given the wide public support for reform, this seems like a losing strategy, unless public be damned, we’re helping our friends is the only concern. If you like reform but not this bill, how would you change it?
Republicans voted unanimously Monday to block an effort to overhaul financial regulations from reaching the Senate floor, pledging to hold out for significant changes to the bill even as they acknowledged the political risk of appearing to obstruct a popular cause.
The 57 to 41 vote in favor of beginning debate, short of the 60 needed, was expected, although Democrats did suffer an unanticipated defection when Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) joined Republicans as a no. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was prepared to call further votes Tuesday, Wednesday and beyond.
“We need to keep the pressure on to get a deal as quickly as possible,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.
About two-thirds of Americans supported stricter regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Majorities also backed two main components of pending Senate bill: greater federal oversight of consumer loans, and a proposed fund paid for by the financial industry that would go toward dismantling failed firms that put the broader economy at risk.
Given the public support for tougher Wall Street rules, the unanimity that Republicans demonstrated Monday may not endure.
HMyers–my understanding of the “truth” of this bill is that it is NOT a bailout, it is meant to simply be a fund for the winding down of bankrupt corporations. It expressly states it is not a bailout. It expressly states the shareholders take a bath, the CEO gets fired etc===not a bailout.
I think the bill is a clever ruse if it has people as informed as yourself buying into it.
The bill may do all its says I say but the issue of too big to fail remains.
RE-INSTITUTE GLASS-SEAGALL!!!!!! Stop finance related (derivatives) wholesale GAMBLING. Stop being idiot sheeple thinking whatever business wants, they should get.
Stoopid Hoomans.
@17 Bobbo
“The fix is in when congress tries to “regulated” something that should be illegal.”
Tell me that setting the maximum interest rate to 36% is reform.
Real reform is rejecting the idea of supergiant international banking corporations and substituting competition in its place which would make the interest rate cap irrelevant.
We only have interest rate issues with banks because they have been allowed to buy each other and would like to form an AT&T/Ma Bell style banking monopoly.
Fix the cause, solve the symptoms. Fixing the symptoms will not fix the cause. These international banks should not be able to avoid even the scant us laws in place like UBS is trying to avoid in Switzerland (despite being a US bank with operations in the USA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_AG
#20 Wall Street Fat Cat…
Appreciate the vote of confidence in my ability to get the word out but I’m picky about who I serve.
Kidding aside, all I do is accentuate the facts. Surely, you would agree with the Republican dilemma at hand. No?
#21 bobbo said, “Benji-Olo==what if it does “drive up the cost of business?””
Then more jobs will go overseas, (sarc) but I guess that is fine because it is not like we are experience unemployment or anything(/sarc). We do need a more business friendly environment to generate more jobs, but we also need to make it clear that we won’t bail out companies that are corrupt.
HMeyers==says “Tell me that setting the maximum interest rate to 36% is reform.” /// When the effective APR at Pay Day Loans is 400%, yes, 36% is reform.
But like I said==you should not try to reform acitivities that should be illegal.
C’mon==catch up.
Nice link to USB by the way. Let the Swiss and Singapore have all these too big to gail organizations and outlaw their business in America. The dark force will certainly destroy them. I’d also award all true LIEberTARDS free vacation to Switzerland and Singapore and then revoke their passports when they arrive their. such an insidious third column would surely sink those economies as they have been busily beavering away over here.
Benji==I do believe you are this innocently naive, so I won’t spin off my nut going after you. I do fear though your analysis and position is just as simple minded as you present it here.
The ONLY rational business support position of a government to take considers a BALANCE of what is good for business with what is good for society. Child Labor Laws for instance.
As you are only able to consider half the equation, your opinions are vapid/worthless/not relevant/childish==etc.
So my question to you regarding “both” was sincere. Wrestle with the real issues rather than remain irrelevant. You can do better.
Loaded question.
Financial reform bill with proper content and less of 100 pages in size should be created and supported by both parties. Applicable to ALL financial corporation, stipulating that Govt. will never bail out anyone else and only than regulating on an even plane.
Existing bill is travesty, full of political exceptions that will lead to the same, if not worse end. It does not protect consumer or country. I’d call it “1984 language bill”.
Hey Disnal==what makes a question loaded?
The ONLY WAY to make not bailing out a too big to fail corp is to not have them. Reform short of that achievement is illusory and corrupt.
REINSTITUTE GLASS-SEAGALL.
Does any LIEberTARD here disagree?
It’s interesting to note that “we the people” have spoken and removed the repugnicans from power for the moment, replacing them with the disorganized democraps. However, the repugnicans do not want to cede control and do their jobs. Instead, they band together as mindless sheep to form a wall to stop anything from happening. If “we the idiots” will just wake up for a moment, perhaps we’ll realize that we need to vote even more of them out of office to give the democraps a chance to see if they can do better.
More likely though, we need to get rid of the two party system as a whole and replace it with voting for candidates who make their points using publicly provided campaign funding and no other money to pay for their campaigns. And then I woke up, remembered the real world and screamed. I’ll let you know when the screaming subsides.
#4 – Hmeyers,
Why does this bill need to tax banking to establish a $50 billion fund.
Wasn’t $1.5 trillion in bailouts enough of our money?
The idea is to fund the next bailout from bank money instead of our money. Making a future bailout unnecessary by regulating the banks so strictly that they can’t collapse the entire world economy again may be a better idea. But, taking their money away to fund the next bailout is better than funding another with our money.
Better yet, don’t call it a tax. Call it paying back the money we already gave them. Then, when the bailout is paid back, we can talk about them paying into an insurance fund to bail them out when they do this crap again.
The average voter is not informed or intelligent enough to understand what is in the bill. They want financial reform and want to “stick it to wall street”, but will not be able to see how this bill actually helps the big banks.
So, yes, if the Rebublicans want to stand by their principals to stop even more government expansion and fascist-like growth, they should not vote for this. If they want to give in to stay elected, they should vote for it.
The best situation is if they could stand their ground long enough to actually get the democrats to remove bad provisions like the taxpayer supported slush fund and institutionalizing too-big-to-fail, they could vote for it. If instead the process of big banks failing gets streamlined (government could temporarily take over the loans instead of big banks getting easy access to money to continue risky practices) that would be a different story. That bill could get bipartisan support, and everyone would be happy. Instead, as usual, the democrats aren’t happy with a bill unless it vastly grows the size of government and its powers, even at the expense of the original intent of the bill.
Cranky==what color is the sky in your world?
The Repugs are against any financial reform at all. They think as deeply as Benji that this is good for business. You know: what do I get today and forget about tomorrow.
And Cranky==tell me how the government choosing rule A vs rule B grows or shrinks it by any measurable amount? The notion that EFFECTIVE regulation is a “take-over” is a late sign of tertiary syphilis. You should have that looked at.
Bobo – thanks, well said. I have been getting increasingly nauseous hearing from “libertarians”;all the true believers in the”Austrian school”, “Chicago school”, and old fashioned laissez faire “Reaganomics” horse pucky. Proven monstrously, tragically, dead wrong over and over again, they still believe.I know comic-con trekkies who are more reasoned.
Hmeyers – hard to take you seriously since you are clearly a junior hack at some third rank PR flackery (or you’d be writing for cable) – the “competition” you long for if it is unregulated always and everywhere leads to monopoly.Business monopoly acrues – or seizes – political power, and freedom dies.
ALWAYS
Bobo – GLASS-STEAGAL is imperative, but I will be pleased to get the derivatives (which I understand were something like 60 trillion in the last bubble – or was it 600?) into a visible market.
#42 bobbo,
Do you have any real argument to add to this debate, or should we expect to keep hearing the same Repuglipukes==(bad evil corporate shills who don’t want anything good or any new laws or any reform because they are bad people and i don’t like them) ?
You do know Republicans have been involved writing this bill, right? Only certain recent provisions are points of contention. Many have been pushing for financial reform since day one, while the dems are just now jumping on the bandwagon 20 months after the meltdown. These provisions are major concerns because they give the government new unchecked and vague powers, and instead of reducing the number of too-big-to-fail banks, they help to preserve the status quo, and ensure that we will see that least the same number of these powerful mega-banks in the future.
Now, do you have any actual data I am missing in this assessment or should we expect more of the same?
Scott–such a statement without attribution, links, quotes looks like you are just making shit up. You don’t make shit up and think it is ice cream do you? Do you???
What people want is one level of analysis and we should be consistent on that unless the people have been missinformed by a massive and constant program of misinformation===making the bottom line what people benefit from should be another and superceding level of analysis.
So Scott==try to form an honest opinion. Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL or not? Regardless of what some biased poll might indicated? Do you form that opinion based on what you think “the American people want” or based on what you think is best for the American people.
See how that works? Good boy.
#44–Gazbo==thanks for the support. Maybe you are only late to the party and have missed the torrent of my abuse over the last few weeks? But yeah–nausea inducing it is. My nick above is a pretty reasonable summation of the issue that is acceptable in mixed company. Perhaps more relevant is my new less used nom de flame as it does violence to the header: “libertarianism fails when its Dogma blinds them to the rising threat of Corporations that can only be held in check by Government thru the will of the people”
The liebertards seem to be somewhat in retreat here. I’m sure they haven’t changed/learned anything new, dogmatic they have become, but perhaps a few have an itch in the back of their minds.
#45–Cranky==so you say the Repugs are contributing to the bill as well as blocking the bill, or not blocking the bill or what?
Repuglicans have shown themselves to be totally corrupt. No one should take anything they say at face value.
Turning your attention to the corruptness of the bought and paid for political system in america is a valuable criticism of your naivitee/spin/sheepleness.
You can disagree with the many points of opposition I have posted, but you are in your own world if you think I have made no real argument.
Try again.
Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-SEAGALL or for letting the corruption continue?
Edit–note for Gazgo==clear and transparent gambling is still gambling==a derivative meaning of no underlying economic worth===GAMBLING. You should be against it.
Half a loaf, Bobbo. Visible and therefore knowable gambling is far better than invisible gambling which can be represented as anything at all. I’ll take what I can maybe get. Tomorrow the pony.
It was, by the way, the ceaslessly maligned FDR who said that the govt needs to be more powerful than the most powerful corporation – a simple democratic thought lost on the idealogues and camp followers.
#46 – bobbo,
Scott–such a statement without attribution, links, quotes looks like you are just making shit up. You don’t make shit up and think it is ice cream do you? Do you???
scott or Misanthropic Scott? Which post?
Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL or not?
I’m not only very strongly for reinstating Glass-Steagal, I’m for reinstating the old limits on leverage and most other banking regulations that were changed in the Reagan years 1981 – present. I’d also be for using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up anything too big to fail (not to mention too big to jail).
Reagan is touted by the right as the best president we’ve ever had. I think as time goes on, we will realize that he was an excellent orator and really changed the entire paradigm. Unfortunately, the changes he instituted in terms of lowering taxes on the wealthy and deregulating corporations in every way possible have lasted through the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years and are horrifically destructive to a fair market economy.
Corporations do not play fair by their nature.
To have a fair market requires strict regulations. To have a fair economy requires taxing the rich more than the poor. Yes, I’m talking about raising taxes.
Please remember that pulling out of the bank-caused depression of the thirties and going through WWII and through the boom of the 50s and 60s was all done with a top nominal tax bracket in excess of 70% and for decades, over 90%. The economy boomed with high taxes on the small percentage of the population that is truly wealthy. Where to set the limits of that tax bracket may be difficult, over 5 megabucks a year or over 25? I’m not going to make an exact call on where that should be. But, lowering taxes on the rich puts an undue burden on the middle class to make up the difference.
Also note that 5 years before the depression in the 30s, the top tax bracket was drastically reduced. Now, we’ve had 30 years of low taxes and are again in depression. Strong correlation, though admittedly not causation. However, it is a certainty from looking at the 50s and 60s that high top tax brackets do not hinder real growth. They may, however, hinder bubble creation and the level of extreme income disparity that we are currently experiencing.
bobbo,
I think #27 Mike already summarized quite succinctly why Republicans were working on the bill but are now blocking it in its current form. It is really not that complicated. Don’t pretend to be confused.
If you want to change topics and talk about corruption, go ahead. There is a lot of corruption on both sides, but the only thing that will prevent corruption is preserving a system with checks and balances. Creating a system with new unchecked oversight to ensure big banks cannot ever go out of business after they donated to your campaign fund is quite the opposite of that.
Everyone but you is in their own world, right?
The word reform should be in quotes, because it is a toothless bill which is designed to quell the demand for reform without really solving the problem. We need, at a minimum, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and a serious crackdown on the sorts of games typified by the John Paulson-Goldman Sachs ABACUS deal. To go along with that, we need regulators that enforce the law, to keep the commercial banks out of the casino whether they like it or not. Tough regulations, vigorously enforced. Anything less is a smokescreen. What FDR did was modernization, and what the “reformers” did was dismantle that regulation, because it worked and kept them in check.
Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-SEAGALL or for continued corruption?
Seems the libs here are all for that, and the Corrupt Spin Meisters refuse to answer the question, while calling for bi-partisanship.
Speaking of someone refusing to stop the spin: Cranky==answer the question. Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-SEAGALL or for continued corruption?
Cranky and Mickey==sounds like the Repugs are now blocking the bill because Obama is for it? Old play from a corrupt playbook. But lets take a step back==should it matter at all “why” Repugs say they are against reform when they offer nothing in return????
You sound like you are against reform, want to keep the corruption flowing, and will find any excuse to justify your perfidy. You are a hack==at least until you answer the question. Go Ahead==take a stand on the substance rather than the process.
Just rereading and this is a throwaway: what is “unchecked oversight?” People that think such labels designed to obfuscate have any validity really are living in their own world.
So===I call out posers such as yourself. Brigands. Fools. Spinmeisters. Not because you disagree, but because you have no position other than corrupting the debate and thinking you can get away with it other than with your brain damaged base.
#51….what Mike says yet another in a long string of Fox News/GOP Channel Talking Points of the Day.
IOW, provably wrong, total bullshit.
#50 Scott,
Take a look at these numbers.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
You are right that top tax bracket rates have been relatively low over the past few decades compared to previous decades. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it is now generally accepted to some extent that there is an optimal point of taxation to generate the highest revenue for government while keeping the economy strong, and it is nowhere near 80% or 90% One big difference now in comparing tax brackets to the first half of the 20th century is that the top tax bracket income limit keeps getting pushed down and down. ‘Obama Rich’ is now $250k, which would have been been equivalent to $11k in 1910. Compare this to the top tax brackets back then, between $500,000 and $2,000,000. That corresponds to the tens of millions today – up to $50 million!
Back when rates were higher, everyone paid taxes, even if they only paid a small amount. Now we have so many credits and entitlements that only 50% of the population is even paying taxes. This means that the definition of rich must come down to eat into a bigger and bigger portion of the middle class for the government to have any chance at not turning a deficit. This in itself may not be such a bad thing – I don’t think any government should be totally dependent on a very small group of rich people for funding. But now we have half of the country, who does not contribute at all, dictating that the other half must pay a higher and higher rate. For the majority of the people who actually pay some taxes, the current rates are still way higher than what they would have paid back when the top rate was higher. In other words, the rich and the poor have it easier, and the middle class gets screwed.
You may feel compelled to support one of the two main political parties depending on which one you feel is screwing your more, but in the end you are getting screwed if you are in the middle class.
By the way, before you go blaming Reagan for all of the financial de-regulation, look at the years that portions of the Glass-Steagal were repealed – 1980 and 1999. Reagan was not president for either of these. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 had the biggest impact here. This was a Republican sponsored bill but had very strong bipartisan support.
So Clancy==are you for REINSTATING GLASS-SEAGALL or for continued corruption? Simple Question cutting thru all the spin and landing on substance. Extra credit if you can even muster more than a vacuous yes or no. Why? I can give an honest response with reasons to both answers. Why can’t you?
You are being dishonest when you say the less wealthy do not pay “taxes.” Why not be honest and say “income taxes.”
Pure political hack. Do you get paid for this or are you innocently this blind? Do you know what blindness caused by adherence to dogma does????
Hee, hee. Silly Repuglican. ((“I’m not a repuglican. yea, sure.))
Sorry Clancy, I meant cranckygeek. Don’t know why I type entire wrong words from time to time. Should make a big target, but folks here are kind enough to let it pass. ((Heh, heh!))
#55 – aslightlycrankygeek,
I think it is now generally accepted to some extent that there is an optimal point of taxation to generate the highest revenue for government while keeping the economy strong, and it is nowhere near 80% or 90%.
I agree that this is generally accepted. Reagan changed the paradigm, as I stated. However, I think the statement that this is generally accepted does not make it correct. A billion flies find shit to be delicious. I don’t personally agree, so ….
One big difference now in comparing tax brackets to the first half of the 20th century is that the top tax bracket income limit keeps getting pushed down and down. ‘Obama Rich’ is now $250k, which would have been been equivalent to $11k in 1910. Compare this to the top tax brackets back then, between $500,000 and $2,000,000. That corresponds to the tens of millions today – up to $50 million!
Yes, we’ve lowered taxes on the very top earners, a very small percentage of the population getting a huge benefit. So, I said to start the higher tax brackets at a high level and used 5 or 25 million a year as examples of high. You suggest higher than that, fine. I wasn’t married to either of my example figures.
Now we have so many credits and entitlements that only 50% of the population is even paying taxes.
I think you’re going to need to cite a source for that. If 50% aren’t paying taxes, you must be including those below the poverty line. They do not and should not pay taxes. It’s the .01% or so at the top that are not paying taxes that I want to hit. I want to remove their loopholes and charge them a ton. They can afford it.
Remember, one of the effects of lowering the taxes on the extremely wealthy has been to erode the middle class. So, the tremendous income disparity makes the number of people paying taxes at the low end lower and lower and the amount we can tax them ever lower. And, since we removed most of the taxes on the top, the middle through upper middle class keeps getting hit harder and harder.
For some reason people get scared by hearing 70% or 90% taxes on the top bracket. I have no idea why since so few people are in that bracket. And, when they paid it before, we had a growing and strong economy with a strong middle class and without a tremendous income disparity. Removing that tax bracket has done irreparable damage to this once-great nation.
By the way, before you go blaming Reagan for all of the financial de-regulation, look at the years that portions of the Glass-Steagal were repealed – 1980 and 1999. Reagan was not president for either of these. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 had the biggest impact here. This was a Republican sponsored bill but had very strong bipartisan support.
Reread my post please. I said that Reagan changed the paradigm. He did. All of the presidents since, including our current president, are continuing the Voodoo Reaganomics that were indeed started by Reagan. That’s my statement.
So, Reagan started a bad idea. Reagan so deeply implanted it in our feeble minds that we cannot get rid of it even as we watch it crumble the world economy. Yes. I blame Reagan and those who followed him for continuing his policies of lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations and deregulation of businesses leading to an unfair and uncompetitive market.
#57 bobbo,
Why do I waste my time responding to you? I know it is pointless yet you can be so annoying I let myself get sucked in to your cluttering of this comment board.
First off, I took time to look up and present facts and figures that some people may not know, but I find interesting and very relevant to this debate. Contrast that to your opinion which everyone on here is very familiar with. Opinions come easy. You can post whatever opinion you want here, but don’t act like my posts ‘spin’ or somehow avoiding the topic when I am producing real data to back up my statements, and you are not.
As for your question – you never directed that at me so don’t act like I am avoiding it. (Even if I didn’t answer, not getting sucked into an inane debate by someone on a blog is probably a good thing.) There are actually two Glass-Steagall Acts, the 1932 and 1933 acts. They were not both completely repealed, only certain sections. The most important repeal to this argument is the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. In short, I think some deregulation was good to level the playing field with securities firms and foreign institutions, but this went too far. I believe that institutions with accounts backed by the FDIC should be very limited to what they can invest in. If the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 were completely repealed, I would say this is a knee-jerk reaction, but it wouldn’t really bother me. What bothers me is instead of trying to break up the big banks or come up with a system like the FDIC for individuals whereby the banks can fail and credit still flows, the current bill ensures their survival. How is that fair?
Crankygeek: Are you for REINSTATING GLASS-SEAGALL or for continued corruption?
My definition of corruption:
Total world GDP: 55 Trillion
http://google.com/search?q=%22world+gdp%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Total Derivative Market: 700 Trillion
http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article17081.html
any system, idea, argument that continues this imbalance, this threat, this corruption is destructive to our society, world harmony. When many suffer for the delusions of the few, changes must be made, in fact will be made, now or later the iron fist of econoics will wipe the board clean from all defective theories and programs.
But when you can see it coming, you should change things shouldn’t we????