(Excuse me for a minute, readers; that video overwhelmed with emotion!!)
Now this post seems so worthless and trite. Crapola politics are the above-the-fold, full-feature focus of today in the Boston Globe.
Related: The PRE-PLANNED Financial/Economic 911 of 2008
Didn't have the same visceral effective as those collapsing behemoths, did it?
"Debate stalls on Wall St. overhaul; One Democrat’s defection stings party’s Senate push; Brown says GOP compromise would protect Mass. firms" by Matt Viser, Globe Staff | April 27, 2010
WASHINGTON — Polls suggest the legislation is popular with the public, but it has drawn strong opposition from securities industry lobbyists.
Once again, Americans, you are not getting what you want (allegedly, according to the agenda-pushing poll cited by the paper).
Democrats appeared intent on pushing forward, betting that Republicans will eventually cave under public pressure to support the bill. Majority leader Harry Reid planned to file another motion last night that could force votes today and tomorrow, allowing Democrats to continue pounding their theme that Republicans are in league with Wall Street bank executives....
Both of them are; the whole place is bought and paid for -- and I'm tired of the time, space, print, and air being consumed by the MSM on this political wrangling and bulls***.
By the end of the piece you realize something is coming and this is all arm-flailing, fart-misting games (sorry to put it that way, but that is the most accurate description available).
Senate Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts, for the first time, listed his specific objections to the Senate Banking Committee bill: He wants a $50 billion fund to liquidate failing firms stricken from the bill, calling it a “slush fund’’ and saying fees imposed on banks to raise the money would be passed on to consumers.
Yeah, that happens all the time.
And I thought that was stripped out per Obama's wish.
That was the impression I had from the press of the last few days.
He also is seeking exemptions from some new provisions for insurance companies and mutual funds, which are heavily represented in Massachusetts.
“The orders apparently have been given from higher above to just push it forward, score some political points,’’ the Massachusetts Republican said in a brief interview after he voted. “There’s no reason to go to a vote today except to spot the Republicans, to say we’re in favor of Wall Street and they’re in favor of Main Street — yeah, I get it. But it’s time to move on.’’
It was a crucial vote for Brown. His moves on financial legislation are likely to leave the biggest imprint on his first months on the job, giving Republican leaders the leverage they need to delay or block financial regulatory changes. It is a political risk for Brown, who will be blamed by Democrats for scuttling the overhaul if GOP leaders don’t end up cutting a deal. Highlighting the dangers, a liberal group, Americans United for Change, immediately sought to tie his vote to campaign contributions he received from financial executives.
Oh, you mean these?
"Nearly 80 percent of the money Brown got from financial workers came from outside of Massachusetts, in places with a concentration of financial firms, such as New York City, Greenwich, Conn., Chicago, and San Francisco. In addition to financial giants such as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, the donors included executives from hedge funds and private equity firms"
Money well spent I would say; meanwhile, the conventional MSM myth is the Mass. voter was miffed about health care and we have had momentous change.
Then the filibuster didn't matter anymore, and .... pfft, politics!
But
If I see that word in a NEWSPAPER one more time....
Brown, who has denied being influenced by corporate contributions, said yesterday he is confident the compromise talks will result in “a good, strong, bipartisan bill.’’
“They’re so close, they really are,’’ he said.
Yeah, THAT is why I say this is all DIVERSIONARY GARBAGE passing itself off as "news."
Like getting immersed in the cul-de-sac fraud of AmeriKan politics?
I don't; I'm sick of s***.
Republicans were united in their opposition to letting the debate move forward. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the only Democrat to join Republicans in voting against it; he offered no reason, but earlier in the day had raised questions about language in the legislation concerning a complex financial product called derivatives.
And what were those questions (we are never told)?
Two Republican senators were not present for the vote and at the last minute, Reid changed his vote to a “no,’’ a tactical move that will allow him to bring the matter up again as early as today.
Yes, SURE SMELLS like POLITICS!!!
In a move that could deepen the partisan gap and possibly doom a compromise, Republicans are considering introducing an alternative bill.
Senator John F. Kerry, a Democrat and a senior member of the Finance and Commerce committees, was critical of Republicans without mentioning his Massachusetts colleague specifically, saying “they should at least allow the debate to go forward.’’
“This is not a good moment for the United States Senate,’’ Kerry said last night in a statement. “It’s been nearly two years since the Wall Street meltdown and still the Republicans are blocking reforms to end the policies that allowed it to happen in the first place. Every day that goes by without reform is an invitation to more taxpayer bailouts and Wall Street greed over reform to protect Main Street.’’
Why, John?
All those BRILLIANT FED and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS are ON the CASE to make sure it doesn't happen again, right?
I mean, THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR WAYS and SEEN the LIGHT on Wall Street, right?
I mean, I HAVE BEEN TOLD MY WHOLE LIFE this is the GREATEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM EVER DEVISED by man and where EVERYBODY WINS!
Now it turns out THAT was a LIE?!!!!
As for the BAILOUTS, I thought those were OVER!!
I mean, YOU GUYS DECIDE if they will get the money so DO NOT GIVE THEM ANYMORE, John!! We do NOT NEED LEGISLATION for THAT!
So HOW MANY INDUSTRY PERKS are REALLY in this bill?
What BAD NEWS will we -- like always -- FIND OUT LATER after the monstrosity has been passed?
Democrats pounded their message that Republicans are stalling in a bid to protect investment and banking officials from stricter regulations.
Yes, I enlarged to emphasis the point -- and size -- of the, well, you-know-what we are dealing with.
‘A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and against fairness,’’ Reid said from the Senate floor before the vote. “As far as I can tell, the only thing the Republicans stand for is standing together.’’
That sounds so SITH-LIKE, doesn't it, DemocrPs?
I thought that was GEORGE BUSH characteristic, but I guess I WAS WRONG!!
--more--"
Also see: Washington Standing Up to Wall Street
Then they will be taking a seat again, unzipping the fly.... oh, never mind, readers.I'll be working fast today, folks.
I have a lot I want post, and I owe it to you to get moving on the backlog.
