Related: Who REALLY Runs Washington
And then they are sitting down under a wave of campaign cash.
"Goldman’s employees.... gave $994,795 to President Obama’s 2008 campaign"
Also see:
Who Bought Brown's Election?
Buying a Change of Congress
So it will not matter who controls Congress next session, will it?
I do expect to see another "historic" change, though, don't you?
"Officials say drop part of banks bill; Legislation faces stiff GOP opposition" by Jim Kuhnhenn and Erica Werner, Associated Press | April 17, 2010
WASHINGTON — In the face of stiff GOP opposition, Obama administration officials have suggested that Senate Democrats purge a $50 billion fund for dismantling “too big to fail’’ banks from legislation that aims to protect against a new financial crisis. Republicans contend the provision would simply continue government bailouts of Wall Street. The whole thing is going to do that anyway.
We don't want this bill no matter what is in it.
Time to UNWIND the FED and shut down Washington!!
The sweeping bill aims to prevent a recurrence of the crisis that nearly caused a Wall Street meltdown in 2008. Besides creating a mechanism for liquidating large firms, House and Senate bills would govern previously unregulated derivatives, create a council to detect systemwide financial threats, and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending, credit cards, and other bank-customer transactions.
Yeah, I know it ALL SOUNDS GREAT!
It ALWAYS DOES until you READ the FINE PRINT inserting at the behest of lobbyists and their loot.
One senior Treasury official said the fund for dismantling failing banks, which would be financed by large institutions themselves, is unnecessary. He said the costs of dismantling the firms could be recouped from the industry after a liquidation.
That is what Treasury says, huh?
If the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, complies, that would remove the Republicans’ major objection, which they have used to rally opposition to the bill.
Related: Senate Republicans Roll Over For Fed
Gee, those smart crafty Repuglicans are getting out of the way a lot!
This is all a GAME!
DemocraPs push it, Wall Street pretends its against it, Repugs feign blocking it, and they all win!!
Dems look butch, Wall Street look whipped, and Repugs stil, have a campaign issue.
The ONLY LOSERS are the American people -- which happens every time something passes down there, for....
"corporate support is key to [a] bill’s passage"
Thanks for clearing that up, John.
Earlier in the day, Senate Republicans stood solidly against the bill after GOP leader Mitch McConnell persuaded Susan Collins of Maine to join 40 fellow Republican lawmakers in expressing their opposition and demanding further negotiation.
McConnell suggested dropping the bank fund wouldn’t be enough to satisfy Republicans. “I appreciate the Obama administration’s recognition of the need to substantively improve this bill,’’ McConnell said. “And I hope we can work with them to close the remaining bailout loopholes that put American taxpayers on the hook for financial institutions that become too big to fail.’’
The legislation would for the first time regulate derivatives, the instruments such as mortgage-backed securities that contributed to the near meltdown when their value plummeted during the housing crisis.
President Obama declared yesterday that he would veto the bill if it doesn’t regulate such freewheeling markets. “We can’t afford another AIG,’’ the president said, referring to the giant insurance conglomerate that relied heavily on the complex, sometimes exotic investment instruments.
How much did they give your campaign?
But there’s some dispute among Democrats about how far such regulation should go.
Related: Bankers' Best Friend
And that is what passed the House!
Yesterday, the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, issued her version of derivatives, which goes beyond the pending banking bill by requiring large banks to spin off their derivatives trading operations.
That provision would especially hit banks such as Goldman Sachs and
Oh, yeah? How are they going to do that?
The Treasury official said the administration preferred language in the Senate Banking Committee bill that would restrict overall proprietary trading by large banks, not just derivatives trades. That provision, however, would require a council of regulators to first study how to implement such a regulation. Lincoln’s proposal is more specific. The Treasury official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe positions the White House was not ready to take publicly.
So the White House is knuckling under just a bit, huh?
I guess a million dollars for a presidential campaign means a lot.
And he pretends he's for the people.
This guy is worse than Bush; at least Bush acknowledged he was for the "haves and have-mores," remember that quote?
The unified Republican opposition strengthened the hand of their Senate leader, McConnell of Kentucky, as Democrats prepare to bring the legislation to the floor for debate. The majority Democrats had been hunting for individual Republicans to peel away from their party caucus to help gain the 60 votes that would be needed to overcome a likely GOP procedural roadblock.
Now they need 60.
They shoved health care up our asses, but now the magical 60 votes is threatening to shut down the Wall Street regulation bill.
What a GREAT OUT and EXCUSE, huh?
--more--"
Thus you-know-who must get out there and holler wolf.
"Obama says crisis repeats unless there is overhaul
WASHINGTON — The United States is destined to endure a new economic crisis that sticks taxpayers with the bill unless Congress tightens oversight of the financial industry, President Obama said yesterday.
Why?
I thought all you good guys were fixing the problem, and WTF is with our economy anyway, loaded with looters like this?
The overhaul is the next major piece of legislation that Obama wants to sign into law this year, but solid GOP opposition in the Senate is jeopardizing that goal.
“Every day we don’t act, the same system that led to bailouts remains in place, with the exact same loopholes and the exact same liabilities,’’ Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “And if we don’t change what led to the crisis, we’ll doom ourselves to repeat it.
That's the whole thing: we voted for that change and didn't get it.
“Opposing reform will leave taxpayers on the hook if a crisis like this ever happens again,’’ the president said.
What do you mean IF?
Surely the WELL-MEANING BANKERS and ECONOMIC GURUS wouldn't LOOT US AGAIN, would they?
Why do we need even worry about this in the greatest economy ever devised?
A proposal that Senate Democrats are readying for debate creates a mechanism for liquidating large financial companies to avoid a meltdown.
For the first time, the government would regulate derivatives, those financial instruments whose value depends on an underlying asset, such as mortgages or stocks. Derivatives can help hedge risks. But derivatives can produce steep losses, or huge profits, if the value of their underlying asset sinks. The proposal also would create a council to detect threats to the financial system and set up a consumer protection agency to police people’s dealings with financial institutions.
On Friday, Obama promised to veto the bill if it doesn’t regulate the market for derivatives, which contributed to the nation’s economic problems after their value plummeted during the housing crisis.
I dare you! I double dare ya!
But
Readers.... ?
Democrats haven’t agreed on how far such regulation should go, and all Senate Republicans are united against the bill. That opposition complicates Democratic efforts to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome likely GOP procedural roadblocks.
Notice the paper doesn't like using the word filibuster after that the fraudulent tactic and excuse was exposed when they shoved healthcare up your smock.
Republicans contend that a provision creating a $50 billion fund for dismantling banks considered “too big to fail’’ would continue government bailouts of Wall Street. Obama administration officials say such a fund is unnecessary and they want Senate Democrats to remove it.
I believe they did. Now Obama can give them more.
Obama criticized financial industry interests for opposing the proposed regulations and for waging a “relentless campaign to thwart even basic, commonsense rules.’’ He repeated his call for Republicans and Democrats to work together to overhaul the system, but made it clear that Democrats are prepared to go it alone. “One way or another, we will move forward,’’ he said. “This issue is too important.’’
Yeah, I know.
--more--"
I guess buying Brown was well worth it, 'eh, Wall Street?
WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown said yesterday that he would join a Republican filibuster to block a package of financial overhaul bills from coming to a vote in the Senate, providing his GOP allies with greater support as they seek to stifle Democrats’ hope for a crackdown on Wall Street.
Brown, in his first Sunday morning talk show appearance since being sworn in three months ago, also accused President Obama of playing politics with the issue and said that Democrats were not doing enough to work across the aisle....
Hey, whatever charade works for Wall Street and the Fed.
Brown’s appearance comes at a key time for Republican political strategy, with top Democrats planning to bring the financial measure to the Senate floor as early as this week. It was also unusual for a freshman senator to have such a high profile one-on-one interview so early in his tenure, illustrating Brown’s national profile.
Washington, for the next several weeks, will be fixated on financial regulatory reform, as Senate Democrats determine whether they should alter their bill to attract Republican support or dare them to vote against a plan meant to crack down on unpopular Wall Street firms....
I'm sick of the politics, 'kay?
--more--"
Related:
Globe Editorial To avoid future bailouts, pass tougher rules now
Now I am definitely against it whatever is in it.
They could have avoided bailouts the last time like we wanted. Didn't need a law for it. What have they stuck in there that we are not going to like?
And it is the same diversionary crap from the MSM as healthcare.
Prospects uncertain, blah, blah, blah -- and then it gets done!
WASHINGTON — Republican Senator Richard Shelby said he and Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd are close to reaching an agreement in the Senate on a bill to overhaul the regulation of Wall Street....
A deal would probably ensure passage of a bill. Last week, all 41 Senate Republicans pledged to oppose the measure that Dodd’s panel passed last month....
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said he expects to bring the measure to the floor this week or next....
Supposed to be today.
Shelby said the other issues he and Dodd must resolve include a proposed consumer protection bureau that would be housed at the Federal Reserve and a provision to strengthen the oversight of derivatives.
More on that in the next article.
Senators on both sides have held out hope that a bipartisan majority could materialize. But in the short term, to overcome a possible GOP filibuster against bringing the measure to the Senate floor, Democrats are targeting three Republicans: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Bob Corker of Tennessee. They have said they oppose the bill in its current form, but Snowe and Corker have said their concerns could be resolved.
The Obama administration intensified its attempt to corral their votes, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner meeting with Collins. “This can be worked out in a bipartisan bill that will greatly strengthen our financial system and prevent the too-big-to-fail phenomenon,’’ she said after her meeting. Geithner met with Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown last week, and Obama called him from Air Force One yesterday, seeking his support....
That's the MSM's way of describing threats.
Also yesterday, Obama’s proposal for a new tax on large banks picked up support as Democratic lawmakers sought ways to help fund their priorities or cut the deficit by targeting institutions that benefited from the 2008 Wall Street bailout. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, wants to include the bank tax in the financial regulations bill, a pitch Dodd said he would probably oppose....
All the print and space for a bunch of arm-flailing bullshit.
Democrats are looking for money to pay for several measures, including a one-year extension of a series of popular tax cuts that expired at the end of 2009....
Aren't they always?
And how come the Bush tax cuts are extended but popular tax cuts are not?
Oh, those are the Bush tax cuts, MSM?
Oooooh.
Smell something bad, sob!!
In 2008, Congress and former president George W. Bush approved spending $700 billion to bail out institutions as the financial system was on the brink of collapse. The Troubled Asset Relief Program was later expanded to include automakers and homeowners, which would not be subject to the new tax. The TARP program plans to spend a total of $497 billion, according to a report released yesterday by its inspector general. To date, firms have repaid $186 billion, with billions more expected to be repaid.
And we are still going to lose $100 billion at least -- not counting Fannie and Freddie, automakers, AIG, etc, etc.
But the tone of the paper lately is how great the bailout was!
Still,
Oh, fer Christ's sake, MSM!!!
the program is projected to result in a loss to taxpayers of as much as $127 billion.
BUT, you know.... sigh.
The law that created TARP requires the president to submit a plan by 2013 to recoup that money. Banks argue that a new tax would reduce lending and increase fees for consumers just as the economy is picking up.
Yeah, picking up for their profit margins.
What scum. What greedy, ungrateful scum.
--more--"
And about that Fed house for the CPA:
"Fed may go public with its fight against consumer unit; Compromise bill may come undone" by Robert Schmidt and Scott Lanman, Bloomberg News | April 13, 2010
That is the last thing the Fed wants to do.
WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve governors are discussing whether to publicly oppose placing within the central bank a consumer-protection agency that they would not be able to control, three officials said.
Oh, THAT is THEIR BEEF?! Pfffft!
Yeah, don't go public with that!
Under a measure approved by the Senate Banking Committee, the Fed would house the autonomous organization but have no control over its budget, personnel, or rulemaking.
Central bank staffers have concluded the Fed may nevertheless be held accountable for possible missteps by the new entity, said the three officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
They already are.
Once the light goes on and you understand what a criminal cartel that private banking clan is you never go back.
Genies do not go back in the bottle, folks?
“It’s a no-win situation,’’ said Kevin Petrasic, a banking attorney who formerly worked at the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Now he is talking about the American people.
Yet Fed governors are reluctant to alienate lawmakers by coming out against the plan....
Bull-oney!
They are meeting with them behind closed doors and setting them straight!
Creeping closer every day:
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans and Democrats predicted yesterday that Congress would soon pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system, indicating a potentially swift resolution of the latest partisan firefight on Capitol Hill.
What, they voting on it in the dead of night tonight so you can wake up tomorrow and see a surprise and win for the DemocraPs and Obama again?
But
Do I have to even type it, readers?
the sides offered starkly different reasons for their optimism. Republicans said that they had forced Democrats back to the bargaining table to negotiate a bipartisan accord, while Democrats said that Republicans were hastily abandoning their opposition in fear of public outcry.
Who cares about the "politics?"
With President Obama headed to New York City today to press the case for tougher rules for Wall Street, Senate Republicans reported progress in negotiating changes to the bill. But they did not point to any specific concessions they had won and Democrats said they made none.
(Blog editor is incredulous at that waste of time, money, space, and print; actually, maybe I should not be considering the source)
As the legislation gained momentum, a first crack appeared in the Republican wall of opposition yesterday when Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, voted with Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee in favor of imposing tougher rules for derivatives, the complex securities that were at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.
The agriculture committee, which deals with derivatives because it oversees commodities futures trading, voted 13 to 8 to approve the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, the panel’s chairwoman. The bill is expected to be part of the wider regulatory overhaul. In a statement later, Grassley said that his vote did not mean he would support the larger financial bill, which he said “has a number of flaws that need to be resolved.’’
But Democrats seized on his defection as a sign that Republicans were finding it increasingly untenable to oppose the legislation. Democrats said they would to push for a first procedural vote Monday, in what could be a serious test of Republican resolve. Senior Democrats said they viewed the vote as a no-lose proposition forcing Republicans to agree to begin debating the bill or be seen as obstructing it.
Pfft politics!!!
The Democrats’ efforts have been bolstered this week by a series of developments in Washington and on Wall Street, as regulators announced a fraud case against
But it's not connected, or so I was told.
See: Goldman Sachs' Rigged Gambling Game
They were not the only one playing; so was all of Wall Street.
“Wall Street’s unquenchable thirst for profits and utter disregard for ordinary consumers led to a pattern of greed and recklessness that darn near led to a complete collapse of our financial economy,’’ Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and lead sponsor of the legislation, said in a floor speech yesterday.
Back on auto-pilot, Chris, so you are free to move about the cabin.
Republicans initially had expressed stiff opposition to the financial regulation bill, saying it would encourage, rather than prevent, future taxpayer bailouts of financial firms. But that argument has crumbled in recent days, as Republicans insisted that they, too, want to clamp down on Wall Street. Grassley is up for reelection this year and has long championed greater transparency as a good-governance tool....
Agenda-pushing MSM is telegraphing passage to you.
As talks continued between Dodd and Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the banking committee, some Democrats said they were prepared to accede to Republican demands and drop from the bill a provision to create a $50 billion fund, paid for by big banks, which would be used to unwind failing institutions.
Says paid for by big banks, but... they are dropping it anyway.
The Obama administration has also opposed the fund, which it fears could limit its ability to deal with bank failures.
Translation: They MAY NEED MORE than $50 billion!
And HOW THEY HANDLE IT NOW is with TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!!
The fact that this information was saved for the end of the piece is another tell.
To advance the larger bill, Senate Democrats need the backing of at least one Republican to surmount a filibuster.
Oh, they will get it.
--more--"
My printed paper had an AP piece from which I took the first two paragraphs.
I could find it, but honestly, who gives a f*** anymore?
One lying MSM PoS insult is the same as any other.
More from the bought-off Obama:
"Obama links finance rules to woes in auto industry" by Darlene Superville, Associated Press | April 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — President Obama cited encouraging signs of an auto industry rebound yesterday as he promoted stronger financial rules that he said would help prevent a repeat of the crisis that pushed carmakers to the brink.
Senate Democrats have set a test vote tomorrow on legislation to tighten federal oversight of the financial sector. The auto industry was one of the biggest casualties of a recession fueled by risky lending and speculative trading practices of major financial institutions. But after shedding 400,000 jobs in 2008, bailed-out US automakers are rebounding. General Motors Co. said last week it would repay $8.1 billion in US and Canadian government loans five years ahead of schedule. Chrysler LLC said it boosted its cash reserves by $1.5 billion despite a first-quarter loss of almost $200 million.
In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the auto industry is on more solid footing, but it would take more time for the economy to recover from the loss of 8 million jobs. He blamed the downturn on irresponsible risk-taking by Wall Street companies.
In a speech Thursday in New York, Obama argued for new rules to protect consumers and hold financiers accountable. The changes would end taxpayer bailouts, bring complex financial dealings into the open and extend new rights and protections to consumers and shareholders.
“That’s how after two very difficult years we’ll not only revive the economy, but help to rebuild it stronger than ever before,’’ he said yesterday.
We can rebuild him, yes we can!
Sigh. So when all the factories
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, has set a test vote on the financial overhaul bill for tomorrow, but acknowledged that the timetable could slip if bargaining with Republicans proved fruitful. Republicans say they don’t agree the bill would end government bailouts and they want to keep negotiating. Without an agreement with the GOP, Democrats would need 60 votes to move forward in the Senate. They have 59 votes.
Sorry, couldn't do it.
So all this time, space, and money will be for absolutely nothing -- which describes most of what I read in the paper.
In the weekly GOP message, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas said Republicans aren’t trying to block the bill but want to make sure it would end bailouts.
“It’s time for the name-calling to stop,’’ Hutchison said. “Getting our economy back on track is too important to allow political games to sidetrack these efforts. Both parties agree that any financial regulation should do one essential thing: No company should be considered too big to fail. And never again should taxpayers be expected to bail out those who made risky financial bets with other people’s money.’’
And never again should political parties be allowed to be so duplicitous.
Senate Democrats close ranks on finance bill (By David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times)
You know the drill, readers. It's there if you want it.
Related:
"No deal yet on financial rules as test vote looms" by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer | April 25, 2010
WASHINGTON --With no bipartisan deal on how to rein in Wall Street, Democrats stepped up their efforts Sunday to splinter unified Republican opposition to their sweeping regulatory overhaul.
In a move that could attract the support of at least two Republicans, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, agreed to toughen his sweeping bill with rules on derivatives despite objections from the Obama administration, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations....
The legislation, the most sweeping effort to rein in financial institutions since the Great Depression, is approaching its end game, and Republicans and Democrats alike predict it can ultimately pass with bipartisan support.
Shades of health care in a way -- at least, the MSM coverage of it.
But for now....
But, sigh, huh, sigh?
Democrats said they were out of patience.....
And so am I and the American people -- with their patience toward the politicians and that kind of talk from them.
The political environment favors Democrats.
Pfft!
After they passed that health care bill we did not want? Come on, AmeriKan MSM, STOP DISTORTING and LYING!!!
Polls show a public desire to regulate financial institutions, and a recent fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs has created a desire by several Republicans not to be seen as obstructing Wall Street legislation.
I no longer believe agenda-pushing polls cited by the MSM, and the SEC case against Goldman (only a CIVIL case) IS POLITICAL!!!
I thought the MANIPULATIONS LEFT with the Repuglicans and Bush, sob!!
"If you listen carefully to the tone in Washington, just sort of the last couple of days, I think there has been a substantial shift," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" program Sunday. "And I think really on balance there are a very substantial number of Republicans who want to be for a strong set of reforms."
If Geithner is FOR IT you know the WHOLE SCHMEER is a S*** FOOLEY presented to you by a S*** MSM!
That is where my printed paper got out the ax.
What I found on the hidden floor of the web:
Dodd has already incorporated a number of Republican ideas into his version of the bill following negotiations with Shelby and Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. Democrats, particularly liberals, have become increasingly worried that a compromise with Shelby will limit their ability to amend the bill during floor debate.
You guys get CRAPPED ON ALL the TIME, hey!!!
Health bills, nuclear power, oil drilling, wars... what's next?
Dodd offered them reassurances on Sunday.....
Oh, he offer 'em a fix like the House got on healthcare?
--more--"
Vote tonight, right, readers?!
Read it here first!
Also see: Senate Fiddling Around With Financial Regulations
Fiddling around just like the Boston Globe.
Update:
"Republicans themselves have taken up the Democrats Wall Street-bashing rhetoric and have voiced hope that a bill will ultimately pass. In that light, the path to final approval seems clear."
Sick of the fooleys yet?
