OT : Dodd Resigns
mo_charles
mo_charles
_____________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
susan
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2gbe17...@recgroups.com...
> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>
> mo_charles
I think a lot of these guys are being *blackmailed* into quitting - I wish
they'd tell the dirt instead. Much more interesting reading.
Jerry Sturdivant
"mo_charles" <harry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2gbe17...@recgroups.com...
> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>
> mo_charles
They would all have to resign.
Jerry (resigned) 'n Vegas
Irish Mike
> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>
> mo_charles
Chris Dodd isn't resigning for the "good of the nation". He is resigning
because he is trailing his Republican challenger and he knows he doesn't
have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting re-elected. This is the same
crooked bastard who has chaired all of the banking and finance committees
for the last three years - including the last two years of the President
Bush's administration. He was personally involved in running F-mae and
F-mac in to the ground and played a key role in facilitating the sub-prime
mortgage financial disaster. He voted for all of Obama's horrific
financial policies, gave America one last good fucking when he voted for
Oama's disgraceful health care bill and now he is going to retire. Or
rather, take some fat cat political job that Obama has arranged for him.
It was actually a smart move on Obama's part. He buys off Dodd to vote
for his health care bill with the promise of a post-senate job, knowing
that Dodd will never get elected any way. This clears the way for the
Democrats to bring in a new candidate who can claim that he never voted
for any of Obama's past idiotic bills.
This is just the same old boy, crooked deal, Chicago style politics that
has become the hallmark of Obama's administration.
Irish Mike
Obama: "I will not sign any health care bill that adds even a single dime
to the deficit."
CBO: "Mr. President, we have scored the latest version of your health care
bill and have determined that it will add at least $170 billion dollars
to the deficit."
Obama: "Well dollars are OK. I never said any thing about dollars. Just
make sure the bill doesn't include any dimes."
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
da pickle nospam
<snip>
< This clears the way for the
< Democrats to bring in a new candidate who
< can claim that he never voted
< for any of Obama's past idiotic bills.
< This is just the same old boy, crooked deal,
< Chicago style politics that
< has become the hallmark of Obama's administration.
Sure, but it’s not like the Repugnants are honest either. They’re all
politicians. The important news is that the Democrats will keep the
seat.
mo_charles
i sense ... i sense a change here ... some hope ... some hope for
a lucrative future as a cocksucker LOBBYIST!
mo_charles
---�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
Maybe, maybe not. The American people, and particularly independents, are
getting pretty damn sick of Obama and his disastrous spending policies.
And now the Democrats are working behind closed doors (again) to pass this
monstrosity health care bill and jam it down the throats of the American
people. So I wouldn't be too confident about any Democrat seat. Also,
now that we have finally gotten rid of those crooked bastards at ACORN,
it's going to be more difficult for Democrats to commit voter registration
fraud.
Irish Mike
Proud to be one of the 60,000,000 Americans who did not vote for Obama.
_______________________________________________________________________�
ChrisRobin
> > any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>
> i sense ... i sense a change here ... some hope ... some hope for
> a lucrative future as a cocksucker LOBBYIST!
He's a cretin, no doubt. Maybe AIG is hiring?
Puppytoes
> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>
> mo_charles
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
________________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
>
just because they're gay?
mo_charles
---�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Dave the Clueless
> > > any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
> >
> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
>
> just because they're gay?
>
> mo_charles
Is that all they have in common? Or are you just sniffing for intolerance?
Or maybe you're a moron.
______________________________________________________________________�
Jerry Sturdivant
"Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:sg6f17x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 6 2010 4:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:
>
>> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>>
>> mo_charles
>
> Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
Not any different than the rest of congress.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Puppytoes
> Not much different but they have done more harm so they're a little
special.
Puppytoes
> > > any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
> >
> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
>
> just because they're gay?
>
> mo_charles
Well I know Barney is a screamer but that's news to me about Dodd.
Hey Barney would love prison.
______________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
>
> Or maybe you're a moron.
next time i'll lead in so you can understand:
knock knock ...
mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________�
ChrisRobin
Yes, they are. These two dopes led the charge for banking and derivatives
deregulation, the GSE takeover of the real estate market via Freddie and
Fannie, and countless other handouts to wealthy financial interests. These
two scumbags are the worst Congress has to offer, by far.
----�
Jerry Sturdivant
"Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ldcf17x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 6 2010 1:14 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
>> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:sg6f17x...@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jan 6 2010 4:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:
>> >
>> >> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>> >>
>> >> mo_charles
>> >
>> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
>>
>> Not any different than the rest of congress.
>>
>> Not much different but they have done more harm so they're a little
> special.
So it's not that they're harmful, but the amount of harm? How have these two
(who I'm sure you didn't notice were Democrats) more harmful?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:rlef17x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 6 2010 4:14 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
>> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:sg6f17x...@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jan 6 2010 4:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:
>> >
>> >> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
>> >>
>> >> mo_charles
>> >
>> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
>> Not any different than the rest of congress.
> Yes, they are. These two dopes led the charge for banking and derivatives
> deregulation, the GSE takeover of the real estate market via Freddie and
> Fannie, and countless other handouts to wealthy financial interests.
Nah, not even close. Deregulation has been (and remains, by the way) a flag
the GOP has waived for years. And look who's presently fighting the
Democrats to keep it that way.
Jerry 'n Vegas
ChrisRobin
The Dems have paved the way for much of the financial deregulation we've
seen over the last decade, Jerry. To borrow a phrase, get yer head out of
the Kool-Aid bucket.
_______________________________________________________________________�
Puppytoes
> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ldcf17x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 6 2010 1:14 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> >
> >> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:sg6f17x...@recgroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 6 2010 4:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the nation?
> >> >>
> >> >> mo_charles
> >> >
> >> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in prison.
> >>
> >> Not any different than the rest of congress.
> >>
> >> Not much different but they have done more harm so they're a little
> > special.
>
How have these two (who I'm sure you didn't notice were Democrats) more
harmful?
>
Please ... you can't be serious.
-----�
Clave
So you don't have an answer?
Jim
Travel A
deregulation/freedom to compete was abused.
The deregulation was bipartisan, btw.
The deregulation was supposed to enable a limited scale of securities
selling and done in a responsible manner; by setting up separate
divisons for retail security selling in places like AIG (an insurance
company that insures Wall Street investment banks) and CitiGroup, (a big
commercial bank) etc.
The problem was the blatant abuse and corruption by way of: instead of
selling securities on a small scale (i.e., as an accommodation for small
"bank account" type of everyday depositors) the Citigroups and AIGs of
the financial industry got into big time financial deals; buy-outs;
takeover deals and especially the infamous sub prime derivatives.
In other words, the banks that were restricted from selling stocks and
bonds, etc., to everyday working American depositors, could now, with
the deregulation, sell securities to the "little people"; just like,
say, Merrill Lynch does with their small investor accounts. Ya know,
like anyone here that has a stocks/mutual fund account with a brokerage
firm.
The Robert Rubin types at a Citigroup type of commercial bank, who did
the abuse, and a regulartor in bed with the whole thing like former New
York Fed Chairman Timothy Geitner, are where the blame lies. Not, "the
Republicans" and deregulation.
Financial regulations are merely safety rules. The regulation was
loosened, but the safety and responsible implementation aspect was
blatantly abused. No rule will prevent a disaster if those with
authority act irresponsibly and greedily in a very deliberate manner.
And that's exactly what happened.
Total corruption on Wall Street. And they're still there under an Obama
administration.
They're the capitalism exploiting communists.
The Fed is supposed to be independent, but with Greenspan under Clinton
and the current Fed under Obama they're take orders from the left wing
executive branch.
The Fed is making them (Wall Street) whole again, they're doing the same
corruption again with big bonuses again, and it's all on the American
taxpayer's dime.
Note well: Rubin and Geitner are, of course, big left-wing Obama guys.
It's all totally left-wing in the blame department. Bush did nothing to
stop it, however.
As far as congress, the real conservatives should stay: all Democrats
out, and RINO Republicans (McCain, Snowe, Collins, etc.) voted out. And
the RINO Bush, if he wasn't already retired.
Jerry Sturdivant
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:1qpf17x...@recgroups.com...
You go on believing that, from Ronald Reagan on, big business (GOP) hasn't
been working on deregulation. ("Government is too big and too much in our
lives.") Even now the Democrats are trying to get reregulation back in and
the Republicans and Big Business are STILL fighting it. Wall Street will
love you. They've even buy you another drink (of that cool aid).
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:2v5g17x...@recgroups.com...
The reason I asked, is because I knew you couldn't answer. Thanks for
playing.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19875-4B45...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
> The actual deregulation wasn't the problem, it's how that
> deregulation/freedom to compete was abused.
You 'abuse' by removing the regulation that prevents abuse.
> The deregulation was bipartisan, btw.
I believe we covered the obvious.
> The deregulation was supposed to enable a limited scale of securities
> selling and done in a responsible manner.
Whoa! This wasn't just financial deregulation. It's MUCH bigger.
> Total corruption on Wall Street. And they're still
> there under an Obama administration.
That's another thing his administration inherited. They're working on
reregulation and the GOP is fighting that, just like they did Healthcare.
GOP = Big Business It was in all the papers.
> They're the capitalism exploiting communists.
Oh please. I forgot who I was replying to..
Jerry (outta here) 'n Vegas
Puppytoes
> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2v5g17x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jan 6 2010 2:50 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> >
> >> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:ldcf17x...@recgroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 6 2010 1:14 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >> news:sg6f17x...@recgroups.com...
> >> >> > On Jan 6 2010 4:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> any other crooks in congress want to do what's right for the
> >> >> >> nation?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> mo_charles
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Good riddance to bad rubbish! Dodd and Frank should be in
> >> >> > prison.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not any different than the rest of congress.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not much different but they have done more harm so they're a little
> >> > special.
> >>
> > How have these two (who I'm sure you didn't notice were Democrats) more
> > harmful?
> >>
> > Please ... you can't be serious.
>
> The reason I asked, is because I knew you couldn't answer. Thanks for
> playing.
Not couldn't ... but wouldn't as in take the time to give you
chapter and verse about all the corruption they were up to their necks in.
You are either in total denial or are as dumb as a stump! Actually, I
don't think those two options are mutally exclusive so I believe you are
both.
-----�
Travel A
Turd's ever posted."
Jerry Sturdivant
"Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:qjgh17x...@recgroups.com...
You STILL can't answer the question.
> You are either in total denial or are as dumb as a stump!
Is that like, "Please . you can't be serious"?
> Actually, I don't think those two options are mutally
> exclusive so I believe you are both.
I said, thanks for playing. You're partisan; your post showed it and your
inability to address is proved it. You simply parrot FOX.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19875-4B46...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
> Know what a good RGP game would be: " Try to find the true thing that
> Turd's ever posted."
Or you replying when you see you're beat.
Travel A
I wrote:
The actual deregulation wasn't the problem, it's how that
deregulation/freedom to compete was abused.
Turd babbled:
You 'abuse' by removing the regulation that prevents abuse.
I wrote:
The abuse occurred with the regulation that remined after the loosening
of the existing regulation. It happened exactly as I stated, above. The
commercial banks, etc., were supposed to limit their securities sales
involvement to the retail level. They didn't do that, and to an extreme
and disastrous extent.
Instead of Obama's joke Justice Department investigating an American
Patriot like Dick Cheny, he should be investigating Wall Street
communists who, with the left wing congress, caused the financial crisis
due to corruption on a spectacular level. Obama's protecting them. He'd
have to invstigate his own joke Treasury Secretary, Geitner.
I wrote:
The deregulation was bipartisan, btw.
Turd squealed:
I believe we covered the obvious.
I wrote:
Yes, that you're an idiot and didn't know that. Why do you try to dodge
when your lies are exposed?
I wrote:
The deregulation was supposed to enable a limited scale of securities
selling and done in a responsible manner.
Turd Quacked:
Whoa! This wasn't just financial deregulation. It's MUCH bigger.
I wrote:
Again, one thing that's much bigger is your idiocy.
The curruption was much bigger, that resulted in disaster.
I wrote:
Total corruption on Wall Street. And they're still there under an Obama
administration.
Turd drooled:
That's another thing his administration inherited.
I wrote:
He didn't inherit anything the Left wing didn't create. In fact, he
appointed a lot of them, like Geitner. Obama came close to appointing
Rubin; but that would have been so ridiculous that even Obama couldn't
bring himself to do it.
Turd heehawed:
They're working on reregulation and the GOP is fighting that,
I wrote:
Of course they're fighting it. The Democrats calling it "reform" is
beyond a bad joke.
They're trying to push bad legislation as usual, that does nothing but
make-cover for Obama's fellow capitailism exploiting communists on Wall
Street.
Turd blithered:
just like they did Healthcare.
I wrote:
Fighting a communist takeover of a fith of the economy that also lowers
the quality of health care for all, is the least the GOP should do.
Not to mention the Death Panels.
Turd bleated:
'GOP = Big Business It was in all the papers.
I wrote;
Big business is what's great about this country, they create wealth and
jobs. It's in all the papers.
I wrote:
They're the capitalism exploiting communists.
Turd whined:
Oh please. I forgot who I was replying to..
I wrote:
Yes, someone exposes your idiocy and blatant lies.
Travel A
I wrote:
Know what a good RGP game would be: " Try to find the true thing that
Turd's ever posted."
Turd brayed:
Or you replying when you see you're beat.
I wrote:
We're still waiting for the first time that that's ever happened.
But it's a real challenge to find anything you've ever bleated that's
the actual truth.
ChrisRobin
> You go on believing that, from Ronald Reagan on, big business (GOP) hasn't
> been working on deregulation. ("Government is too big and too much in our
> lives.") Even now the Democrats are trying to get reregulation back in and
> the Republicans and Big Business are STILL fighting it. Wall Street will
> love you. They've even buy you another drink (of that cool aid).
Jerry, your grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Your child-like vision of
the Democratic Party is a complete fantasy. Folks like Dodd, Frank, and
the New Democrat Coalition (led by Melissa Bean) have been trying to strip
away any meaningful regulation of the financial industry for years. For
example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elk/wall-streets-favorite-dem_b_384206.html
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-democrat-coalition-guts-meaningfu
The Dems aren't enemies of big business, as they'd like you to believe.
That's just campaign rhetoric.
----�
Puppytoes
> No, still won't take my precious time to outline it all ... can't you read
or comprehend the written word. You think if you just say something often
enough it becomes true.
> > You are either in total denial or are as dumb as a stump!
>
> Is that like, "Please . you can't be serious"?
>
Yeah, pretty much so!
>
> > Actually, I don't think those two options are mutally
> > exclusive so I believe you are both.
>
> I said, thanks for playing. You're partisan; your post showed it and your
> inability to address is proved it. You simply parrot FOX.
>
> Lol and you sound just like Keith Olberman or up my leg Chris. So, in
your mind (said loosely) you are right??? Get your head out of the bucket,
baby!
Jerry Sturdivant
"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message news:03lh17x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 7 2010 7:59 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>> You go on believing that, from Ronald Reagan on, big business (GOP) hasn't
>> been working on deregulation. ("Government is too big and too much in our
>> lives.") Even now the Democrats are trying to get reregulation back in and
>> the Republicans and Big Business are STILL fighting it. Wall Street will
>> love you. They've even buy you another drink (of that cool aid).
> Jerry, your grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Your child-like vision of
> the Democratic Party is a complete fantasy. Folks like Dodd, Frank, and
> the New Democrat Coalition (led by Melissa Bean) have been trying to strip
> away any meaningful regulation of the financial industry for years.
Bullshit. It is as I said. In fact, I just got my daily mail from American Progress, I'll let their fingers do the talking (Don't be afraid to click on the links):
The Future Of Financial Regulatory Reform
Yesterday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chairman of the Senate Banking
Committee, announced that he will be retiring
from the Senate at the end of his term. "In the long sweep of American history,
there are moments for each elected public servant to step aside and let someone
else step up," Dodd said. "This is my moment to step aside."
One of the biggest questions that Dodd's announcement
provokes is what his departure will mean for the financial regulatory reform
legislation that he has been trying to move through the Senate. One "gleeful" financial service lobbyist
opined that it would lead Dodd to give in to Republican demands,
while Politico's Victoria McGrane wrote that it might compel him to put "it
all on the line to get what he wants,
bipartisanship be damned." Dodd's retirement also injects an urgency into the
regulatory reform debate, as his likeliest successor as chairman is Sen. Tim
Johnson (D-SD), a bank-friendly Democrat widely criticized by consumer
advocates. As the Wall Street Journal wrote, Dodd's "decision gives
Republicans the incentive to draw out the process until after next year's
elections when a more business-friendly Democrat could ascend to the banking
panel's chairmanship." But some are optimistic about reform's chances now that Dodd does
not have to focus on an election. "We're hopeful [his retirement] clears his
decks to focus like a laser beam on the real problem of helping
Main Street get out from under the mess Wall Street left us in," said Ed
Mierzwinski, program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research
Group
THE STATE OF THE
CFPA: The "key stumbling block" to financial reform passing in the
Senate is Republican opposition to the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), which was
included in the reform legislation passed by the House last month. The banking committee's
ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), "has condemned the agency as a burdensome intrusion on
business" because "safety and soundness [of banks] should be number one." Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) added
that "from the Republican point of view, the idea of a separate agency is still anathema." Meanwhile, financial services
lobbyists are pushing the Senate to consider a proposal by Rep. Walt
Minnick (D-ID) which, instead of creating a CFPA, would create a loose consumer protection council within the existing
regulatory framework. Minnick put forth his proposal as an amendment in the
House, where it was narrowly defeated. "We've talked to a lot of senators, on both sides of the
aisle, who have seen what Walt Minnick has done," said Rob Nichols, president of
the Financial Services Forum, which is actively advocating for Minnick's
proposal and represents the 18 largest financial institutions in the country. But
as CNBC's Becky Quick pointed out, such a council would have "no real teeth in being able to implement
anything."
THE ROLE OF THE
FED: One area where
the banking committee appears to be reaching consensus is on the future regulatory role of
the Federal Reserve. Reuters reported that committee members "agree the Fed
should be confined to monetary policy and being lender of last
resort," and "should not be directly supervising banks." "Over the last
number of years when [the Fed] took on consumer-protection responsibility and
regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure," Dodd said in November. The
committee's decision comes days after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
delivered a speech in which he called for "better and smarter" regulation "aimed at problems with
underwriting practices and lenders' risk management," a role which he would like
to see the Fed take on. However, as the Washington Post reported, regulatory
failures occurred because the Fed "had joined -- and at times defined -- the
mainstream consensus among policymakers that financial innovations had made banking safer." "The Fed has since tried to
take a proactive stance on consumer protection, but it's clearly too little too
late," wrote Mother Jones' Andy Kroll. "And if history is any example, promises
of better regulation and greater scrutiny only fade with time, and it wouldn't
be surprising to see the Fed revert back to the way it was before the
housing meltdown."
A RETURN TO
GLASS-STEAGALL?: Outside of
the banking committee, a growing number of economists and elected officials are pushing for the breakup of large, complex
financial firms, potentially through a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act,
a Depression-era law that separated investment and depository banking.
Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, and bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress to revive it. "If big Wall Street
institutions want to take part in risky transactions, fine. But we should not allow them to do so with federally insured
deposits," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is sponsoring the Senate bill along
with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA). This week, Kansas City Fed President Thomas
Hoenig said that "dismembering firms is a fair thing to consider," adding
that regulators could "carve out" the parts of a financial institution that are
taking risks with government backing. Paul Volcker, who who currently heads
President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, has also advocated breaking
up firms that are "too-big-to-fail" and creating a wall between investment banking and deposit
taking. Even former Citibank CEO Jack Reed, whose lobbying was instrumental in Glass-Steagall's repeal,
has concluded that some sort of separation "makes sense." Thus far, the Treasury Department has not
been receptive to reexamining Glass-Steagall, with one official saying that it
would be akin to "going back to the
Walkman."
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:bpth17x...@recgroups.com...
I only had to say it once. It's still fact.
>>> You are either in total denial or are as dumb as a stump!
>> Is that like, "Please . you can't be serious"?
> Yeah, pretty much so!
Yea, not answer there, either.
>>> Actually, I don't think those two options are mutally
>>> exclusive so I believe you are both.
>> I said, thanks for playing. You're partisan; your post showed it and your
>> inability to address is proved it. You simply parrot FOX.
>> Lol and you sound just like Keith Olberman or up my leg Chris. So, in
> your mind (said loosely) you are right??? Get your head out of the
> bucket,
> baby!
And at the end of it all, you STILL couldn't answer the question....
Jerry 'n Vegas
ChrisRobin
<snip>
That's awfully nice sounding rhetoric. However, let's resurrect this
conversation when all of this legislation actually passes (assuming it
does), and compare notes. I'd bet my left arm that what passes doesn't
even remotely resemble these bold declarations of "reform."
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
You are correct, sir.
Sheesh.
Here I am agreeing with you.
I'm due for a night of high anxiety waiting throughout the night to
see if the sun comes up in the east tomorrow.
Travel A
proven that he and his ilk can't be trusted abide by the intent of the
repeal and to act in a responsible manner.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall and the return to it, are both bipartisan.
The difference of course is that, left wing is just trying to distance
themselves from guilt of the what they created in abusing the financial
system in the first place, and the Republicans' motive is in preventing
a reoccurrence of the left wing abuse of the system.
The Democrat joke "financial reform", for the most part, just takes four
banking regulators and turns it into one overseer, and creates a
"consumer protection" agency. The bill is either completely superficial
or it just leaves more Wall Street/left-wingers with more power to cover
their ass in the future.
These agencies will be populated with left wing hacks.
The so-called "consumer protection agency" will just be a left-wing
attack agency like the EPA or OSHA; giving more control to big
government over free enterprise.
When the left wing claims to be protecting "the people" watch out; it
means that they're taking more rights away from the people and free
enterprise.
How about enforcing the banking regulations that are already on the
books. Oh, wait, that would put the Rubin and the Geitner ilk in
trouble, wouldn't it.
There should be huge congressional investigations/committee hearings
etc., on this financial crisis. Where are they? The Wall Street
capitalism exploiting communists who should be before the committees,
are back on Wall Street as usual making big profits off Obama's Fed
giving them free money on the backs of taxpayers, and giviing themselves
big bonuses and special supplies of swine flu shot perks.
The Democrats had no problem in humiliating automobile industry
executives before a committees, and those executives did nothing wrong.
Talk about timing, the financial crisis hits, and a radical left wing
socialist becomes President with a left wing congress.
When are the Democrats going to propose a bill making a 20% cash (not
borrowed money) down payments on home mortgages mandatory, with full
income affordability background checks and strict credit rating
requirements?