So the Republicans are going to filibuster financial reform

[Ugmo]

Are they fucking crazy? What is the logic behind this? Everyone in the country hates bankers. The Republicans are going to get killed in the court of public opinion for this.

Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown: what the fuck are you thinking?

[lerxstcat]

They're thinking they want capitalism to remain the domain of robber barons, apparently....

[Ugmo]

Apparently Frank Luntz wrote a memo explaining how to twist the message so that people will think the bill does the opposite of what it actually does, then the memo got leaked, then Mitch McConnell got busted using all the talking points from the memo.

I guess this is a continuation of the "keep the Democrats from getting shit done so that people will think they're incompetent and vote for us next time" strategy (coupled with the expedient side effect of whoring themselves out to Wall Street), right? But why financial reform? You'd think they'd sit this one out and bring the battle to the next issue.

Okay, so John "Oompa Loompa" Boehner and Mitch "Face Transplant" McConnell are assholes. I'm not surprised they're against financial reform. But why are the moderate New England Republicans on board? Is Scott Brown looking to become a half-term Senator?

[vlad]

Jesus H. Christ....

If the GOP wanted to win, they'd be all over Wall Street....what an excellent target to get to populist vote. Hell, if they were serious, I'd even, probably briefly , consider voting for them.

Instead, they look like catamites for the oh so popular "financial industry"...not just them either, a whole lot of Dem pols are just as enthralled.

Though as a Democrat, I do hope they continue to push for the "big guy"...really hard. Loud and proud, please.

[Ugmo]

Jesus H. Christ....

If the GOP wanted to win, they'd be all over Wall Street....what an excellent target to get to populist vote. Hell, if they were serious, I'd even, probably briefly , consider voting for them.

I understand that what they're trying to do is confuse people about the bill, like they did with health care reform. But once it becomes clear that what they're saying isn't correct (and it will), they lose big time on this issue.

Surely this isn't a position that appeals to Teabaggers. Everyone despises Wall Street at the moment! Or look at this forum for example.... this is the first thread about financial reform as far as I can tell. Not even the posters who are blindly loyal to the GOP like Yourmomma/Nevermind/Shagg/Roxxstar seem to be sufficiently against financial reform to come in here and post the GOP's talking points. When not even your base supports what you're trying to do that's a bad sign!

[vlad]

Not even the posters who are blindly loyal to the GOP like Yourmomma/Nevermind/Shagg/Roxxstar seem to be sufficiently against financial reform to come in here and post the GOP's talking points. When not even your base supports what you're trying to do that's a bad sign!

Give it time.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

It will take a couple of weeks for FNC, Sean and Rush to shift gears from the imminent failure of health care reform., Once they get their walking orders, it's on.

[VinnieKulick]

Apparently Frank Luntz wrote a memo explaining how to twist the message so that people will think the bill does the opposite of what it actually does, then the memo got leaked, then Mitch McConnell got busted using all the talking points from the memo.

And, what exactly does the bill, which hasn't been presented in the house, or in the senate do?

Or, are you on this like you were for healthcare takeover, ooops meant to say 'reform', when nobody knew what the hell was in the text of the bill?

I am all for getting Wall Street straightened out BTW.

[Ugmo]

And, what exactly does the bill, which hasn't been presented in the house, or in the senate do?

Or, are you on this like you were for healthcare takeover, ooops meant to say 'reform', when nobody knew what the hell was in the text of the bill?

I am all for getting Wall Street straightened out BTW.

First of all, how is health care reform a "takeover"? There isn't even a public option. It's the opposite of a takeover. But don't let that keep you from parroting another Frank Luntz talking point.

As for the financial reform bill:

The most controversial element of the bill is a $50 billion fund — that would be supplied by financial institutions — to provide for the orderly liquidation of troubled banks posing systemic risk to the markets.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has argued that such a fund could lead to future taxpayer-supported bailouts because of provisions empowering federal officials to keep an ailing bank on life support.

McConnell argues the legislation would enable federal regulators to tap into government funds to keep a bank afloat if the $50 billion raised from the private sector proves insufficient.

Democrats counter that no taxpayer money would be put at risk.

“Sen. Dodd’s bill explicitly says the money that will go for any future bailout for any large institution because it failed has to come from the large institution, not the taxpayer,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), vice chairman of the Senate Democratic conference, who helped negotiate the bill.

The Republican push to eliminate the $50 billion bank liquidation fund received a boost last week from the White House, which may be trying to lower the partisan temperature in the Senate.

Senior Obama administration officials have urged Senate Democrats to drop the proposal.

But Democratic lawmakers disagree with President Barack Obama on this point. House Democrats have called for creating a $150 billion fund to wind down banks that threaten to drag down the financial markets.

So the bill creates a fund that the banks themselves would pay for, yet the Republicans claim it amounts to bailouts. That's not logical. How can they be bailouts if the banks are the ones paying into the fund. This is just another example of the Republicans trying to distort the message for their own gain.

And fucking Obama, the arrogant socialist he is, once again wants to cave into the bastards. Has he learned nothing from health care reform?

The good news is Susan Collins is at least acting like a responsible adult (although Olympia Snowe also clowned the Democrats during health care reform negotiations and ended up voting in lock-step with the GOP, so I'll believe it when I see it).

[VinnieKulick]

So, we're giving them $50million of tax payer money, so that they don't have financial problems in the future? Makes no sense at all. Best way to ensure banks don't waste tax payer money, is to not GIVE them tax payer money.

[Drunk Kennedy]

im against this reform as well. you wanna get it done right...make sure the banks know that they will NEVER get anymore bailouts. if they fail..they fail, and its on them.

[Ugmo]

So, we're giving them $50million of tax payer money, so that they don't have financial problems in the future? Makes no sense at all. Best way to ensure banks don't waste tax payer money, is to not GIVE them tax payer money.

How in God's name did you get that out of what was posted? Are you intentionally misinterpreting this just to be difficult? The banks themselves would pay 50 billion into the fund, then if they behave irresponsibly and get themselves into trouble, the money is there for high-risk banks to be liquidated with and not shock the system like a sudden bankruptcy or bailout would.

[Ugmo]

im against this reform as well. you wanna get it done right...make sure the banks know that they will NEVER get anymore bailouts. if they fail..they fail, and its on them.

That's what this reform does. Don't buy into the GOP's bullshit - they don't want reform. They want a victory over Obama in a misguided effort to win seats in November.

You can't just let an enormous bank fail because it will brink the rest down with it. That's the purpose of the fund that the banks will be required to create themselves.

[Drunk Kennedy]

you cant just let an enormous bank fail because it will brink the rest down with it.[/i]

see..thats where we fundamentally disagree...i think you can and should.

[Ugmo]

see..thats where we fundamentally disagree...i think you can and should.

Dude.... that's the kind of thing that causes Great Depressions.

Ask yourself this though: if the Republicans are interested in financial reform, where is their plan?

[VinnieKulick]

So, we're giving them $50million of tax payer money, so that they don't have financial problems in the future? Makes no sense at all. Best way to ensure banks don't waste tax payer money, is to not GIVE them tax payer money.

How in God's name did you get that out of what was posted? Are you intentionally misinterpreting this just to be difficult? The banks themselves would pay 50 billion into the fund, then if they behave irresponsibly and get themselves into trouble, the money is there for high-risk banks to be liquidated with and not shock the system like a sudden bankruptcy or bailout would.

I TOTALLY misread the original post. Sorry.
My point of view is, if the banks are too big to fail, they are too big.

[Ugmo]

I TOTALLY misread the original post. Sorry.
My point of view is, if the banks are too big to fail, they are too big.

Okay, sorry to jump on you (this time... ). I agree, they don't need to be so big they jeopardize the entire economy.

[Supersonic]

I was told that the regulations that are being put forward to control banks will not include Fanny Mae & Freddic Mac. Is this true? If so, not sure if they should be excluded.

Anyone know more?

[absolutely fabulous]

How in God's name did you get that out of what was posted? Are you intentionally misinterpreting this just to be difficult? The banks themselves would pay 50 billion into the fund, then if they behave irresponsibly and get themselves into trouble, the money is there for high-risk banks to be liquidated with and not shock the system like a sudden bankruptcy or bailout would.

the banks in term would charge higher amounts to their borrowers, it's never out of the banks pockets.
and what's this?

first it's 50 B,
But Democratic lawmakers disagree with President Barack Obama on this point. House Democrats have called for creating a $150 billion fund to wind down banks that threaten to drag down the financial markets.


so, higher earning banks should foot the bill for lower ones? how's this work, a percentage, based on revenue, what?

i agree with other posters, let them fail.

[absolutely fabulous]

I was told that the regulations that are being put forward to control banks will not include Fanny Mae & Freddic Mac. Is this true? If so, not sure if they should be excluded.

Anyone know more?

and that right there is the nail in the coffin.
the government is going to still give money to them, and fannie and freddie won't have to ante into the pot.

[Ugmo]

i agree with other posters, let them fail.

You can't just "let them fail". Look what happened when they let Lehman Brothers fail. The world economy is still feeling the effects. When you let a huge financial institute like that fail, it creates a domino effect. That's why it makes sense to force the banks to create a fund that would enable the responsible liquidation of an institute of that size.

[Ugmo]

Ah, the Party of No, at it again. Keep at it GOP! If there's one thing Americans like, it's a political party that coddles bankers, the most popular profession in America.