Quantcast

GOP blocks debate on Financial Regulation

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
Really? 65% of Americans in this country want financial reform... By a 52-35% margin they also trust Obama more than the Republicans. The GOP hasn't offered anything besides their tired "bailout" argument, which has been debunked by independent groups and was predicated by GOP pollster Frank Luntz. So does the GOP really think that this is going to gain them praise from the American People?


(I'm also a little shocked that any tea party info I can find seems that they're *against* the reform... huh, so they're in favor of Wall St fatcats instead of the ordinary American? Who'da thunk it?)
 

drkenan

anti-dentite
Oct 1, 2006
3,443
0
west asheville
This is crazy. The way that big business is embedded in politics will NEVER change until the whole system just implodes. And it WILL implode...oh yes, it will.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
This just in: yahoo reporting that Reid switched his vote to No so he can reintroduce the bill tomorrow, and if that fails to resubmit again on Wed. Could this actually be the first form of an *actual* filibuster that we've seen in a long time? (and also the first case of the Democrats actually having BALLS?)
 

the desmondo

Monkey
Mar 7, 2007
250
0
It's all a show. Both Democrats and Republicans are in the pockets of Wall St. The reform is weak, and will still allow for bailouts.
 

kidwoo

Celebrating No-Pants Day
Aug 25, 2003
22,485
2,153
In my pants
Desmondo only appears to seek information. Desmondo knows all he needs to know from opportunistic youtube clips and the ron paul monthly newsletter.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,579
1,587
Colorado
Reid's financial reform bill, specifically regarding the bailout of TBTF banks, is a farce. The language around the creation of a bailout fund effectively perpetuates the current TBTF banks, and only prevents future TBTF banks from being created. Until Glass-Steagal is brought back, leverage limits are enforced (at all times, not just reporting - see repo 105), and we have a SEC that is both willing and able to heavily fine banks breaking laws, nothing will change.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
Reid's financial reform bill, specifically regarding the bailout of TBTF banks, is a farce. The language around the creation of a bailout fund effectively perpetuates the current TBTF banks, and only prevents future TBTF banks from being created. Until Glass-Steagal is brought back, leverage limits are enforced (at all times, not just reporting - see repo 105), and we have a SEC that is both willing and able to heavily fine banks breaking laws, nothing will change.
Wow, could you have jammed more GOP talking points into that first part?

1) Since when is a "liquidation" a bailout? Even Republicans are backing away from that one.
2) "Bailout" usually refers to tax dollars, which AREN'T going to be spent. That's why the $50b fund is going to be created, so taxpayers don't have to shell out that money.

In case you didn't read my link to Desmondo, here's the text from factcheck.org:

SEC. 206. MANDATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ALL ORDERLY LIQUIDATION ACTIONS.
In taking action under this title, the Corporation shall— (1) determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company;
(2) ensure that the shareholders of a covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid;
(3) ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; and
(4) ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed (if such management has not already been removed at the time at which the Corporation is appointed receiver).
So shareholders will be wiped out. Unsecured creditors will be wiped out. Management is gone. Show me how that's happened to any of the "bailed out" firms (AIG, Fannie/Freddie, GM, etc) and I'll concede that it sets up for more bailouts in the future.

Yes, I agree that Glass-Steagal should be brought back, but I also think that derivatives should be spun off (if you're going to gamble on synthetic CDOs, you're NOT doing it with money from the Fed window), the Fed should be able to step in and take over *any* failing financial institution (just like the FDIC can do now with banks), which are both in the bill, or might be anyway, since the GOP is blocking ANY DEBATE. I'd go further, and say any TBTF institution should be broken up. Foster competition.

Is this bill perfect? No. Should we at LEAST be debating it instead of watching the GOP filibuster it after McConnell spent a couple days in NY talking to Wall St execs in closed door meetings? Absolutely!
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
Well put.

This, seems to be a continuation of the GOP stance of opposing anything and everything no mater how reasonable.
I'd actually like the Democrats to put it out there that the bill will get more and more onerous the longer the GOP stalls it. Vote for it to come to the floor today, and it'll go to the floor as-is. Filibuster debate and tomorrow you'll have to vote on the same bill except we'll add language that breaks up any bank that has more than 10% of the nations deposits or constitutes more than 2% of the nation's GDP. Filibuster that debate and we'll impose a 4% tax onto any and all financial transactions and put that bill up for debate on Thurs.

The Democrats are *finally* putting forward a tough bill that has popular support, and they're going to make the GOP vote on it (or at least defend their stalling tactics). The GOP has done this CONSTANTLY when they were in power (2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq just weeks before elections), but it seems that all the Democrats can do is wimper and push legislation that the majority of Americans have issues with. But with this bill, 65% of Americans favor tougher financial regulations, and the GOP knows that open debate on this bill is going to be a net positive for the Democrats. Just watch, after all of the stalling tactics, I'd be 50+% of the GOP is going to vote for this bill. They'll whine, stamp their feet, and put on a show, but in the end they're going to hold their noses and vote for it (just like the Dems did in 2002) and try to pretend that it was their idea/bill all along.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
Sweeeeeeet.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and ranking GOP member Richard Shelby have halted talks to craft a bipartisan financial reform bill, according to sources, ahead of another critical vote to advance the legislation Tuesday afternoon.
Keep 'em voting, Reid, it's as close to an *actual* filibuster that you can get. Make Mitch McConnell explain why the bill isn't "ready for primetime", or rather, ready for public viewing and scrutiny.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
Sweeeeeeet.



Keep 'em voting, Reid, it's as close to an *actual* filibuster that you can get. Make Mitch McConnell explain why the bill isn't "ready for primetime", or rather, ready for public viewing and scrutiny.
This whole procedure lost me. Can you give a quick civics lesson as to how these votes act as a filibuster, and why a filibuster is the path to PASSING legislation?
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
This whole procedure lost me. Can you give a quick civics lesson as to how these votes act as a filibuster, and why a filibuster is the path to PASSING legislation?
US law states that a bill only has to pass by a simple majority (50% + 1) in order to pass the House or the Senate.

However, Senate rules state that 60% of the Senate has to agree in order to do certain things, like end debate on a bill. So the typical "filibuster" is that a party can refuse to end debate on a bill, requiring a 60% vote in order to break the filibuster. Previously Senators were required to *actually filibuster*, or keep debating. Senators read from the DC phone book, read novels, etc, in an effort to block debate from ending. These days there's a theoretical filibuster in place at almost all times, so if the majority wants to get something done they go to the minority, and if the minority says "no, you can't proceed" they'll take a vote, and if they don't get 60 senators, the procedure stops.

So Harry Reid is trying to bring this bill to the floor for debate, something that requires 60% of the Senate to approve. Republicans are blocking it (since they have 41 votes), preferring to keep the negotiations secret as opposed to an actual debate on the Senate floor. Democrats are trying to use this as an issue to smack the GOP around, since the public overwhelmingly supports financial reform, and anything the Democrats can do to paint the GOP as friendly to Wall St. is good for their approval numbers.

So yes, it is all just a big show over outdated and obscure Senate rules and proceedings.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
57,500
5,823
media blackout
That might actually be a safe investment. When Hillary is elected president I'm willing to bet ammo prices go up almost as much as they have under President Blacky "socialist" McIslam.
so do you think that the stock market will go bupkis? seeing as how i have no guns for Freedom™, buying ammo seems silly. buying stock in companies that make ammo, on the other hand...
 

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
28,669
4,470
Riding the baggage carousel.
so do you think that the stock market will go bupkis?
Hell if I know. The Guardian (or at least that articles author) seem to think so. If I understood how the stock market worked well enough to really think I was "sure", I wouldn't be working here.

Though seriously, hoarding ammo now might be a good buy on the resale market when the NRA convinces the frothers that democratically elected Supreme Leader Hillary is sending in the UN to take their gunz.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
57,500
5,823
media blackout
Hell if I know. The Guardian (or at least that articles author) seem to think so. If I understood how the stock market worked well enough to really think I was "sure", I wouldn't be working here.
we should consult ///Stoney

Though seriously, hoarding ammo now might be a good buy on the resale market when the NRA convinces the frothers that democratically elected Supreme Leader Hillary is sending in the UN to take their gunz.
their real challenge is going to be convincing the frothers that she's a kenyan muslim soshulist
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
14,579
1,587
Colorado
we should consult ///Stoney
Without having real time to dig into the article, I will note that I trust the IMF over most sources. They have no overwhelming bias from the "members" pushing them to keep member businesses profitable.