Why isn't the right supporting Banking/Wall St reform?

[Nobody Famous]

With the death of Robert Byrd today, the news says "...throws prospects for quick passage of U.S. banking reform into doubt."

I've read that is because no Republicans support it. Why is that? I'm looking for the Cliff notes summary, not an issues debate.

[MTT]

With the death of Robert Byrd today, the news says "...throws prospects for quick passage of U.S. banking reform into doubt."

I've read that is because no Republicans support it. Why is that? I'm looking for the Cliff notes summary, not an issues debate.

Its 2000 pages long?
I already heard about 2 items buried in the bill that make it a non starter. Lots of stuff in the Bill giving government more access to citizens banking info. Stuff unrelated to Bank Regulation.

Creates yet another Federal Department of XXX Last thing this country needs is another federal Department of anything.

So as another conservitard; without even reading the Bill Yea (HATE IT)

Seems they need to amend the current banking laws to do something about Derivatives?

[Pillsbury]

Its 2000 pages long?
I already heard about 2 items buried in the bill that make it a non starter. Lots of stuff in the Bill giving government more access to citizens banking info. Stuff unrelated to Bank Regulation.

Creates yet another Federal Department of XXX Last thing this country needs is another federal Department of anything.

So as another conservitard; without even reading the Bill Yea (HATE IT)

Seems they need to amend the current banking laws to do something about Derivatives?

So, basically, you're so fucking stupid that you HATE IT, even though you haven't read it, and don't understand what the stuff is that is in the bill that you heard about. OH, and it's long.

typical fucking conservitard moran.

[haydukelives]

http://article.nationalreview.com/437209/dont-bank-on-this-bill/the-editors

[Nobody Famous]

So, basically, you're so fucking stupid that you HATE IT, even though you haven't read it, and don't understand what the stuff is that is in the bill that you heard about. OH, and it's long.

typical fucking conservitard moran.

What part of "Cliff notes summary, not an issues debate" wasn't clear.

I'll ask again: Why are elected Republicans not supporting it?

[Pillsbury]

What part of "Cliff notes summary, not an issues debate" wasn't clear.

I'll ask again: Why are elected Republicans not supporting it?

because the brown guy is behind it.

[Rubicon]

I've read that is because no Republicans support it. Why is that?

The fact that the chief authors of the bill are economic illiterates should be enough for any rational person to oppose it, regardless of their party affiliation.

You might ask why there are so many democrats opposing it as well.




I'll ask again: Why are elected Republicans not supporting it?

The NRO article Hayduke posted does a good job of laying out the problems with the bill. It's worth a read and answers your question.

[JimmyCarter]

http://article.nationalreview.com/437209/dont-bank-on-this-bill/the-editors

FYI, despite the fact that this article brings up some worthy discussion points, no one will discuss them because it's from National Review.

[Pillsbury]

FYI, despite the fact that this article brings up some worthy discussion points, no one will discuss them because it's from National Review.

ha, it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an opinion piece filled with hyperbolic bullshit.

[JimmyCarter]

ha, it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an opinion piece filled with hyperbolic bullshit.

Yes it's an opinion piece. Did you read it? What specifically do you disagree with (outside of the political slant)?

[Pillsbury]

Yeah, I read it, and there are a few good points. Again, though, simple obstructionist tactics by the republicants will not help. As we have seen time and time again, the dems attempt to work with the republicunts and they won't have it. If the repubes would come to the table and work to draft a good bill then the american people would really benefit. Instead they are continuing to act like a bunch of little bitches.

[shaft]

The fact that the chief authors of the bill are economic illiterates should be enough for any rational person to oppose it, regardless of their party affiliation.

When we only elect lawyers to office, they will always be "economic illiterates."

Furthermore how to you define economic genius? Seems to me, given the current state of the financial system and the relatively short timeframe of data recorded to assess non-gold backed capitalist free-market trends, there is no such thing.

Something needs to change. The system has not been around long enough to assume it has been perfected. The "conservatives" are not going to put an aggressive bill forward. And they are going to complain about anything the "liberals" create.

Is the "right" in favor of economic reform of any kind? Saying "something needs to change," and rejecting all ideas presented is a two-faced tactic.

[JimmyCarter]

Yeah, I read it, and there are a few good points. Again, though, simple obstructionist tactics by the republicants will not help. As we have seen time and time again, the dems attempt to work with the republicunts and they won't have it. If the repubes would come to the table and work to draft a good bill then the american people would really benefit. Instead they are continuing to act like a bunch of little bitches.

What have the Republicans not done? Do you really think they've been sitting on the sideline the whole time going "I wish they'd hurry up and write this thing so we can vote no!"?

There's a huge difference between not trying and disagreeing about content. And when you disagree severely with content, I think it's much better to vote no than to say "well, we have to pass something, so I guess this will have to do"

[gonehuckin]

That NRO article is dead on with what it should be from the conservative view point. Brings up lots of issues and even a few suggestions. Problem is that not a single Republican in the Senate or the House has the balls to actually propose those changes. Its kill it at all costs, no matter what changes are made. For political points, just like the article states. Its all about who wrote it and not its content.


By the way, the editors of the National Review didn't see the economic crisis either. All was hunky dory under the Bush policies for them. But somehow they now think they know it all.

[Downbound Train]

ha, it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an opinion piece filled with hyperbolic bullshit.

The article or the Bill?

[stuckathuntermtn]

do yourself a favor, and learn just a little bit about Securities Exchanges and such. Or does the book learnin' make you feel gay?

Obstructionist politics, btw.

[Rubicon]

Obstructionist politics, btw.

Obstructing a bad idea is a very good thing to do.

[shaft]

Obstructing a bad idea is a very good thing to do.

Countering with a better idea is a much better thing to do.

[gretch6364]

Yeah, I read it, and there are a few good points. Again, though, simple obstructionist tactics by the republicants will not help. As we have seen time and time again, the dems attempt to work with the republicunts and they won't have it. If the repubes would come to the table and work to draft a good bill then the american people would really benefit. Instead they are continuing to act like a bunch of little bitches.

Wow...you know a lot of word play that insults Republicans and Conservatives....you are so awesome...after reading this post I am going out right now and changing my party affiliation...you make such great arguments...

[Hugh Conway]

What have the Republicans not done? Do you really think they've been sitting on the sideline the whole time going "I wish they'd hurry up and write this thing so we can vote no!"?

There's a huge difference between not trying and disagreeing about content. And when you disagree severely with content, I think it's much better to vote no than to say "well, we have to pass something, so I guess this will have to do"

How do you people write such pablum?

I want a Moral Hazard brand.

[Rubicon]

Countering with a better idea is a much better thing to do.

If there was a reasonable chance of that better idea being implemented, then I would agree. Short of that, stopping the bad idea is the next best thing.

[JimmyCarter]

How do you people write such pablum?


Knowing one's audience helps.

[Hugh Conway]

Knowing one's audience helps.

The Right's more than willing to steal the "contempt for America" banner from the left. It brings loads of electoral success :fmicon:

If you knew your audience you'd go straight to the insults, fucking retard.

[shaft]

If there was a reasonable chance of that better idea being implemented, then I would agree. Short of that, stopping the bad idea is the next best thing.

Progression does not come from the hands of quitters and naysayers.

Some treat the founding fathers like gods. They knew the constitution was flawed, but they needed to get something out there. Sure, you could've stood there with your quill and said "fuck this piece of paper, slaves can't vote, women can't vote, they will eventually tax us, and not everyone is smart enough to be trusted with a gun." Where would that have gotten us? They passed the best thing they could come up with, and we get to fix it.

No solution is perfect, refined design comes over time. You can bitch and moan about problems all day long. Unless you propose a better solution, the world will not become a better place.

[Airsatz]

If there was a reasonable chance of that better idea being implemented, then I would agree.

Fuddyduddy cynics, usurpers, and naysayers at all levels are the #1 problem with government today, in my opinion. They are doing as much or more to fuck up the system than active fraud ever could. It's a matter of character- leaders should understand implementation as a basic qualification, and have at least enough imagination to articulate a vision. The only thing most of these choades have ever implemented is their own prostitution.

[Pillsbury]

Wow...you know a lot of word play that insults Republicans and Conservatives....you are so awesome...after reading this post I am going out right now and changing my party affiliation...you make such great arguments...

Hey Genius, where in the fuck did I say anything about conservatives?

[Rubicon]

Progression does not come from the hands of quitters and naysayers.

Some treat the founding fathers like gods. They knew the constitution was flawed, but they needed to get something out there. Sure, you could've stood there with your quill and said "fuck this piece of paper, slaves can't vote, women can't vote, they will eventually tax us, and not everyone is smart enough to be trusted with a gun." Where would that have gotten us? They passed the best thing they could come up with, and we get to fix it.

No solution is perfect, refined design comes over time. You can bitch and moan about problems all day long. Unless you propose a better solution, the world will not become a better place.

^^^Meaningless platitudes. You are trying to equate unpopular legislation that has bipartisan opposition with the founding of the nation. :nonono2:





Fuddyduddy cynics, usurpers, and naysayers at all levels are the #1 problem with government today, in my opinion. They are doing as much or more to fuck up the system than active fraud ever could. It's a matter of character- leaders should understand implementation as a basic qualification, and have at least enough imagination to articulate a vision. The only thing most of these choades have ever implemented is their own prostitution.

Don't you have papers to grade?

[Nobody Famous]

That Natl Review article is light on the cold hard reasons, and top heavy on opinion (examples below). And yet to read a cliff notes summary of reasons the right is opposed to this.

Examples: Before we get into the details of the bill, let’s briefly review the track record of the two men ....
This is a recipe for an out-of-control regulator with the incentive and the means to restrict forms of credit based on the outside chance that an irresponsible minority might use them unwisely.
We’re very glad that negotiators named this bill the Dodd-Frank Act. When the next crisis hits, it will be much easier to hold these men accountable.

[shaft]

^^^Meaningless platitudes. You are trying to equate unpopular legislation that has bipartisan opposition with the founding of the nation. :nonono2:

The Constitution was popular?! Check your history. They passed that shit tooth and nail with conservative* douchebags all over the colonies reppin the status quo.

You can keep complaining about the bad things that might happen, and I'll keep hoping that someone figures out a way to improve our economic processes. Processes that fail all too easily due to the greed of a few.

The general public does not know anything about the financial sector. Frankly, they shouldn't have to. They need to sow fields, suture wounds, teach children, design buildings, dig trenches, fight fires, invent, innovate, and improve the lives of those around them. All they want from the economy is something stable and simple to deal with. They don't have that now, and won't get it without change.

*in the true sense of the word

[nutcase]

Simple answer: elected republicans are dishonest fucktards and most regular conservatives oppose it because Rush told them it was bad.

More in depth answer: republicans think the government has no business telling banks they can't gamble with federally insured funds, even though the obvious outcome is that taxpayers cover banks losses. modern Conservativism = privatize profits, socialize losses, fuck the little people.

[JimmyCarter]

Simple answer: elected republicans are dishonest fucktards and most regular conservatives oppose it because Rush told them it was bad.

More in depth answer: republicans think the government has no business telling banks they can't gamble with federally insured funds, even though the obvious outcome is that taxpayers cover banks losses. modern Conservativism = privatize profits, socialize losses, fuck the little people.

So what in the financial reform bill of the democrats is addressing these issues?

[nutcase]

So what in the financial reform bill of the democrats is addressing these issues?

Listen Carter. If I want to have an intelligent discussion I don't come to the tgr asshat forum. But, the volcker rule that is increasingly being watered down would have helped quite a bit don't ya think?

[JimmyCarter]

Listen Carter. If I want to have an intelligent discussion I don't come to the tgr asshat forum. But, the volcker rule that is increasingly being watered down would have helped quite a bit don't ya think?

Touche.

Would have been a pain in the ass for the biggest banks (which will still be too big to fail even under the reform) but wouldn't have done much overall.

[Moeghoul]

With Byrd passing away and Scott Brown deciding that more gov't spending is the answer (odd for a teabagger), the bill is on thin ice votewise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/scott-browns-opposition-t_n_629866.html

[Missing Sock]

Scott Brown deciding that more gov't spending is the answer (odd for a teabagger)


interesting way to look at it.

[Downbound Train]

With Byrd passing away and Scott Brown deciding that more gov't spending is the answer (odd for a teabagger), the bill is on thin ice votewise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/scott-browns-opposition-t_n_629866.html

Brown ain't no conservative. He's a MA. repub, which would be a Democrat in most other states. Can't balme the teabaggers for pulling for him though. Better than the alternative.

[shaft]

I don't care about improving society. I care about an imaginary fight between groups of rich liars.

I think you keep meaning to post here:

http://forum.soapoperadigest.com/forum/ubbthreads.php

[Moeghoul]

Brown ain't no conservative. He's a MA. repub, which would be a Democrat in most other states. Can't balme the teabaggers for pulling for him though. Better than the alternative.

So, the teabaggers pulled for him and got duped? Speaks volumes about the movement.

Then this moronic jackass whines about taxes to Lincoln. Lincoln instated the income tax. I won't even bother trying to understand any tortured logic in the concentration camp images. We really are a nation of idiotic douchebags. I guess we get what we deserve. :fuckyou::fuckyou:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/rick-barbers-new-ad-features-lincoln-condemning-slavery-of-taxes-and-welfare-video.php

[stuckathuntermtn]

I think you keep meaning to post here:

http://forum.soapoperadigest.com/forum/ubbthreads.php

lol.


Republican stance right now as perceived by anyone with a brain: "Why should we legislate rampant fraud?!"

Rube and Dumbdumb need to come to grips with the fact that they have no fucking idea what they are talking about, and no opinions of their own.

[Downbound Train]

lol.

Rube and Dumbdumb need to come to grips with the fact that they have no fucking idea what they are talking about, and no opinions of their own.

That must mean your opinion is origional and shared by no one else yet you know exactly what you are talking about. They have homes for people like that. Not many, but a few.

[Downbound Train]

So, the teabaggers pulled for him and got duped? Speaks volumes about the movement.

Then this moronic jackass whines about taxes to Lincoln. Lincoln instated the income tax. I won't even bother trying to understand any tortured logic in the concentration camp images. We really are a nation of idiotic douchebags. I guess we get what we deserve. :fuckyou::fuckyou:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/rick-barbers-new-ad-features-lincoln-condemning-slavery-of-taxes-and-welfare-video.php

I can't speak for all teabaggers, but the context of that election was that Brown was THE vote to stop healthcare. I kinda doubt many teabaggers cared about anything else at the time and I'd defend a single issue vote all day long on that one. But like I said, I wouldn't say they were duped, they got someone much more conservative that the Dem candidate. WINfor Tea party. 100% WIN!!!

[JimmyCarter]

lol.


Republican stance right now as perceived by anyone with a brain: "Why should we legislate rampant fraud?!"


Please explain which part of the democrats' bill is addressing the "rampant fraud".

[OSECS]

Please explain which part of the democrats' bill is addressing the "rampant fraud".

The part where they raise "user fees ??" :rolleyes:

[Hugh Conway]

Please explain which part of the democrats' bill is addressing the "rampant fraud".

The part where they "make life difficult for the big banks"

waiting for the rightwing hacks to insult Volcker

[JimmyCarter]

The part where they "make life difficult for the big banks"

waiting for the rightwing hacks to insult Volcker

You mean the original volcker plan or the version that made it into the bill? Because the first cut might have worked but the current version isn't going to change anything.

[nutcase]

You mean the original volcker plan or the version that made it into the bill? Because the first cut might have worked but the current version isn't going to change anything.


The vast majority of democrats are corporate lackeys. Unfortunately, all of the republicans are corporate lackeys. Like any legislation as of late, the republicans balk and the balking makes it a hell of a lot easier for the corporate dems to water it down to where it either does nothing or makes the situation worse. Unfortunately, the biggest and douchiest corporate dem is also the President.

translation. We are all fucked. The transition to a banana republic is complete.

Now back to asshating

[nutcase]

The part where they raise "user fees ??" :rolleyes:

The "user fees" are either gonna be paid for by the users or by the used. Which one would you prefer?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Please explain which part of the democrats' bill is addressing the "rampant fraud".

In an attempt (though a poor one) to address rampant fraud, there is a tiny change in how risk must be disclosed, and how investments must be disclosed. AAA security investments can be kept of the books as far as risk goes, even though many AAA bonds are garbage.

@DBT: And I do form my own opinions. I believe I was the only one shouting about how Obama's not really that liberal before anyone else on the left decided that was true. Being that my information about the world doesn't come from Fox, I'm automatically more qualified to form an opinion on something than you.