Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The president praised the House action Friday, and called on Congress to act swiftly to get the bill to the White House for his signature."The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington," Obama said. "We have a responsibility to learn from it and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again. "
Not a single repub voted yes for the bill. I guess they don't like oversight and regulations imposed on big banks and Wall St. firms. Hmmmmm, I guess they don't care about protecting Main St. from the reckless behavior of Wall St. Typical.... Rethugs think they have a plan, vote NO on everything important to dems and Obama and if all fails they will be off the hook. They think this spells victory for them in 2010 but look out rethugs, it's all gonna backfire on you! The people know what you are doing, it's all political for you, you care NOTHING about this country and the good people. We ARE NOT STUPID. We are aware of the games you play!
Nancy Pelosi says the House is sending a clear message to Wall St., "THE PARTY IS OVER"
46 comments:
I think the reason the Republicans Voted against the bill
Is because so many of them
Had their fingers in the till
Well, the damn format sure screwed up my poor attempt at a ditty. "Voted" should be the beginning of the 2nd line.
Oh, yeah I get it! Cute ditty Leslie for not so cute republicans!
Obstructionists without a conscience (or brains).
Boy this may spoil the pot for all those who have been saying that Pres. Obama is protecting Wall Street and that he has nominated all the Wall St. insiders to his cabinet so there would be no real reform done..
I was just reading an article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi about all that...lol HMMM could the great Matt be wrong for once.. and will he ever admit it...lol Highly unlikely.
I say let them keep shooting themselves in the foot. Good for'em!
Come 2012 all the republicans are going to be able to do is point to the things they are against, not things they are for. They have consistently voted NO. The people will follow their lead and vote NO for them.
Leslie P ~ NAME republicans who "have had their fingers in the till" and describe how. You are so fond of throwing out these vague charges, but never offer examples. It seems to me that there are quite a few democrats who are having problems being honest lately. The President appointed several to cabinet posts even though they hadn't seen the necessity of paying their own taxes. Tsk..tsk..tsk.
Republicans voted against this bill because it is yet another example of liberal policy that will raise taxes and fees, cost jobs, raise interest rates on credit and make credit harder to come by for businesses and for private citizens. It also creates more beauracracy that will interfere with private enterprise and let Obama intrude himself into the lives of private citizens against their will. Of course, you wouldn't have known that would you?
Linda,
I guess you would point at our current situation (millions unemployed, homeless, a 12 trillion dollar debt, frozen credit, no money to get business moving, etc.) and claim you are totally happy with the Republican policies that have led us here?
Wall Street is doing fine. The banks are posting profits and paying back their loans, but are not loaning out money to get the economy growing. Not to mention it was their mismanagement that helped get us in this financial mess.
Isn't it time to admit that we have a little problem in America, and it was Republican leadership that got us here?
I've seen enough that I agree someone, or some process should be watching over these crooks.
Linda: I'll give you some names but you can research all the whys and wherefore's. I only include bank fraud - not money laundering, insurance fraud, savings and loan fraud and other monetary frauds. Except for one:
John McCain was cited for using bad judgement by his colleagues for his role in the Keating 500 S&L debacle. This is the fellow who campaigned on a good judgement platform.
Now, the list:
Cong. Charles Taylor, R-NC
Rep. Rick Renzi R-CA
George Hanse R-ID
Rep. Robert Ney R-Ouhio
Sen. Conrad Burn - R-MT
Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham - R-CA
Orville Hodge R-Ill
This is not a complete list by any means, especially if you take into consideration all the other types of money fraud. And, yes, there are Democrats who've been caught with their niblets in the till. That is your job. Make sure you verify by checking three sources - the standard practice.
I will tell you that Sen. Harold Ford, D-TN, was found innocent.
Linda: I am a professional researcher and writer. I make a habit of verifying my facts or I simply know them. The focus was on congressmen only - at least as far as my misshapen little ditty and Sue's post are concerend.
Cabinet level positions weren't part of the equation but since you always throw a curve - after the fact - these folks had to step back.
More like the barbarian raids are over. No more enriching themselves at the expense of the real economy.
The fact that all the Republicans -- who, it's safe to assume, represent Wall Street's interests on this issue -- are voting against it is the best evidence that the bill will have effective teeth.
Tom ~ Yeah, I know, Bush did it...sigh. The fact that lots of corruption exists on both sides of the isle, only emphasizes the need to limit terms, reduce the size of government and lessen its access to our money and personal lives and information.
By the way liberal policies with regard to sub-prime lending started this whole mess. Conservatives tried to stop the sub-prime lending and were called "racist" for trying to do what was right. Yes, I'll keep harping on it until libs stop BLAMING all the world's woes on conservatives. Just as there are many dedicated, concerned and honest democrats, there are many dedicated, concerned and honest republicans. Surely, you are not so biased as to think that the blame falls only on conservatives...that viewpoint seems to be ubiquitous on this blog.
My esteemed friends. It does no good to address hot air. The best thing to do is blow it off.
Democratic aims at getting more people to own their own homes is a good idea. I would think conservatives would agree with that thinking.
It was the lack of regulation that caused the problem. regulation that Republicans constantly vote against, like the vote the other day.
After all we have been through, how can conservatives not agree with the need for regulating these companies?
There is a cost for everything, but some things need to be done, so we pay the cost.
Crooks need to be kept in line. These are white collar crooks.
Should we not pay for police to keep the violent street criminals in line?
Any legislation liberal, or conservative needs supervision, oversight, and rules that check abuses.
You sigh when you hear people blaming Bush. Who should they look to except the leaders they elected to cast blame when the situation is so bad and serious?
Bush deserves blame, just as Obama will get blame if Afghanistan goes bad. Just as conservatives are blaming Obama now, for a financial mess that he did not cause.
I hope you are right Jerry!
Linda you are dillusional
Tom welcome! Your comments here are gonna be a great addition to our debates! I see you have met Linda, you are spelling it out perfectly, keep up the good work we appreciate it!
That is so true Infidel.
as usual great job with the facts Leslie!
the 12 days of xmas bailouts. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55xJnIqq9ZI
Tom: It was the lack of regulation that caused the problem. regulation that Republicans constantly vote against
This happens to be exactly correct. It's pathetic for the right wing to claim that an increase in lending to poor people in the US caused a global financial crisis.
It was deregulation going overboard. Deregulation of the financial sector happened in most developed countries, and produced the same results everywhere.
The one major country that didn't deregulate its financial sector -- Canada -- was also the one major country that suffered the least from the collapse.
No, I don't expect the trolls to acknowledge this. They'll blow it off and change the subject as they always do. But it's worth pointing out the truth.
Conservatives...
They tatse like chicken.
RZ: Let's say it for white collar crime. The video would be funny if it weren't so true/sad/pathetic.
LP; it is the system that is broken. When a nation is controlled by the banking elite that control the currency, then that nation is no longer sovereign. It becomes a tool.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/12-1
Tom: "It was the lack of regulation that caused the problem. regulation that Republicans constantly vote against."
Yes, and John McCain was the leader of the pact.
Sue, like you I posted a jubilant article on this bill, but now that more information is starting to come in about what's actually in it, I'm afraid it may just rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.
The Senate will not even see this until 02/10. The uber Banksters will have this to their advantage when all is said and done. It is the beast in finance. Wall.St. runs America, not Main St. They have done everything, and anything, to save the system.
Lets not forget the system is based on debt, and excessive usury. They print money out of thin air, that our country does not even control. The International Banksters control it. The brokerage firms, the Banks, and the Fed, will want to reinflate [bubble] the economy one more time.
RZ, my luv, you need to take an upper. Let's wait and see before we criticize something - either way - that is still an unknown.
Yhe negativity, not just you by any means, is getting to be more of a problem than the reality. No pun intended.
LP; I do not believe in capsules filled with chemicals [upper]. I am strictly an old [herb] kinda guy myself. LOL
If my comments scare you, or disillusion you. Perhaps I should stop commenting. NOT ! ! !
RZ you know your comments and opinions scare me but you better NOT stop!
RZ: "I do not believe in capsules filled with chemicals [upper]. I am strictly an old [herb] kinda guy myself."
I was joking with you, and no, I do not want you to stop commenting. You have too good a sense of humor and lots of brain power - even if I don't alway agree with you. Sometimes I just like to poke.
poke softly Leslie :-)
Sue,
I went over to Linda's blog to respond to her accusations about subprime being cause by minorities and how conservatives tried to stop it but were called racist.
None of that's true of course,it's based on twisting an attempt to regulate accounting in FNMA/FMAC back in 2004 I think it was.No one at the time saw the crisis coming,and to suggest that GWB of all people saw this coming is laughable. They also try to blame the Community Reinvestment Act,not understanding it only applied to depository institutions and was essentially toothless.
Got to give them credit for trying.That,and for being stupid.
When I saw some of the insanity posted on her blog I realized it would be like attempting to reason with an overflowing toilet. Let her wallow in her ignorance.
I haven't been to Lindas blog in awhile so I peeked at it. funny how she is so fearful of liberals, it's mind boggling!
Oso I gotta ask you, how did you come up with that name, Oso?? My granddaughter watches a show on the Disney channel every morning and the little bears name is Oso. Every time I see your name I sing the song, Oso special..Oh So special...
can't help it, it sticks in your head like the Barney song! LOL!
Hi Sue,
That's funny about your granddaughter and the Disney Channel.
Oso is "Bear" in Spanish, my family last name is Osorio so it's just a play on words.
interesting!! Sooooo the bear on Disney named Oso is because he is a bear......
Annette I read the Taibbi article too,he was right on the $ about Goldman and I suspect he's right here too.
Obama is just too dang happy with this thing and if it also has his Keepers approval (Geithner and Summers) then I think we get more of the same in the future.
I don't say that lightly,I honestly believed this economic disaster would change things,would force meaningful change but now I'm doubting it.
I blame much on the Republicans who adamantly oppose anything that reflects positively upon liberals and government.
I also put a lot of blame on Democrats who are nearly as corrupt and bought by lobbyists as the Republicans.I say nearly cause of Grayson and Barbara/Shirley Lee,a few others who care.
Hell I'm just a bundle of laughs huh?
Yep-maybe they're running out of animal names in Disneyland huh ?
Leslie P ~ Thanks for the list of republican "criminals", but I could only find 2 republicans charged with fraud, and neither of them were on your list. I did, however, find quite a few democrats accused/and/or charged with financial misconduct.
I don't care if John McCain used bad judgement or not...he is a republican in name only and causes more trouble than help to the conservatives. I had to convince myself that holding my nose and voting for him would actually be a vote against the extreme liberal policies that I knew would come from a President Barack Obama. I find John McCain to be infuriating and quite frankly, sickening.
I'm not FOR corruption in any party. When conservatives are discovered to be dishonest, I support their removal from office. I personally feel that Mark Sanford should resign, but if he won't, I feel that the republican party in his state should force him out of office. I find it sad that democrats rightly criticize the corruption in the republican party, but overlook nearly all corruption in their own ranks. It never seems to rise to the level of removal from office...Rangel with his tax problems, Geithner with his tax problems, Sebelius with her tax problems, Chris Dodd with ethics problems, etc., etc., etc.
Oso and Sue ~ I don't fear liberals, but I do fear the ignorance and lack of common sense in the liberal agenda. I also fear the coming socialism that this administration is ushering in so quickly. If the main-line press were doing their jobs, Obama would have been exposed for his agenda a long time ago...in fact, I don't believe he would have been elected if the press had been honest in reporting about his voting record (or surprising LACK thereof in Illinois).
Why can't you accept an honest disagreement with your liberal policies? I am conservative and proud to be so. I still (for now) have a right to state my objections to the policies of this administration.
Tom ~ I do blame President Bush for not curbing the spending by Congress. You are wrong about republicans just trying to stop poor people from getting housing. They tried to stop the unwise practice of loaning money to people who had little or no inclination to repay. Loans were made to people who had terrible credit ratings and SURPRISE!!...many DEFAULTED. The republicans surely do not want the type of "regulation" we see by the Obama administration. A take over by the government is NOT in the best interest of anyone in business. Conservatives are not opposed to people who genuinely want to buy homes receiving help to get loans IF they have the determination and ability to repay. The government cannot possibly make every area of life equitable for every citizen. It is foolish to think otherwise.
Linda,
I welcome and enjoy debate,but it's difficult when the other person has difficulty with reality.
Obama listens to advisers who are firmly under Wall St control and he marches to their drummer,not to some socialist agenda.I don't know where the socialist agenda thing comes from but like I said it has no basis in reality.
Re:Republican efforts to curtail subprime lending, you are mistakenly referring to S.190. It was indeed sponsored by Senator McCain but dealt with auditing procedure rather than Subprime. And it was sponsored in 2005, with the Republicans controlling the senate 55-44.
Linda,
I don't believe I said republicans wanted to stop poor people from buying houses. I question if they believe in helping people buy houses. I questioned why they are against sensible regulations.
It would be foolish to have no regulations on such matters. Having sensible regulations does not mean government takeover.
If regulations add to the cost of a program, it is a small cost, to help prevent the abuses we are paying for now.
Just as it is cheaper to pay for the medical insurance of those who do not have it, than it is to pay for the full cost of their medical bills.
Social programs are a way of helping a large number of people, and thus make the country stronger and more secure for everyone.
Social programs do not lead to Socialist government. We vote by majority for these programs, they are not forced on us. You disagree with the majority, fine, but please don't cry Marxism, Communism, or Socialism like so many conservatives do.
Which Republicans are willing to present bills to the Congress, that will end Social Security, Welfare, Food Stamps, Veterans benefits, or any other social program that serves millions of Americans well?
Waste is a natural part of bureaucracy and should be taken into account when starting a new program, but it is not a reason to eliminate programs like Defense, Social Security, or any other program that Americans have voted for, want, and helps them promote a better society. Certainly it's not a reason to fear new programs that will cut costs and help millions of Americans.
If you want to tear down the American government, fine. I will vote and pray that your thinking never gets majority.
Republican leadership has led us to a 12 trillion dollar debt in only 29 years. Democrats held the White House only 8 years out of those 29.
Higher tax rates do not kill growth. between 1948-1980 we built the largest middle class and highest living standards the World has ever known; and we did it with tax rates twice as high as they are now, while paying off our WW II debt.
We didn't start accumulating multi-trillion dollar debts, until Reagan took office.
Linda: A little searching tip. Start broad. Most times you will find lists without even having to know a name. If necessary, narrow it down by name of person or some other keyword.
Also, I know there are plenty of those doggy Democrats there, but you asked for Republicans.
I visited you blog for a second time. I like fiber arts but I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I don't agree with you - except for McCain.
What I don't understand is that when so many other countries have government run health care and the majority are so satisfied with it, why don't we listen. The plan we have is providing ghastly health care and the insurance and companies are making big buck and the expense of patients. Patients can't get coverage for whatever flimsy reason, or they can't be covered in preventative medicine (there were several years when my insurance didn't cover my blood sugar testing supplies - those test strips cost a fortune.)
People in other capitalist countries that think we are absolutely nuts. You can't take the word of a few disgruntled people.
Again, I ask you to read this brief blog on HC in Eng., Ger., Switz., Japan and Taiwan.
You can find the comparisons at:
http://parsleyspics.blogspot.com/2009/11/get-sick-in-another-country.html
This is too long but could tell you a lot more - another time.
Tom I am so happy to have you here to reason with Linda! All the points you made here are great ones and this one especially, for me...
Just as it is cheaper to pay for the medical insurance of those who do not have it, than it is to pay for the full cost of their medical bills.
As a woman with no insurance, what would happen if I had a cancer diagnosis, would I be allowed Chemo and surgery? Who would pay if I became bankrupt with the huge bills? You would pay Linda.. Is that fair to you? NO
Sue: "As a woman with no insurance, what would happen if I had a cancer diagnosis, would I be allowed Chemo and surgery?"
Trust me, you could have insurance and still get the rug pulled out from under you. It happens all the time. Reform would put a stop to this.
thats true Leslie. We need the bill to pass and tweek it later, I'm sure its gonna happen soon!
Oso, I understand what you are saying about Matt's article.. but I think he is wrong this time.. Just like Arianna Huffington he seems to have a huge grudge against all things Geithner, Summers and anything Pres. Obama does when it comes to the economy. Don't ask me why but it is true. It's been this way for a long time... Either the Recovery Plan wasn't big enough, it wasn't targeted correctly.. so on and so on.. just like the bank bailouts.. according to them.. HE didn't do them correctly... well let's rewrite history shall we... the President.. was a Senator when the bank bailouts were done.. that was the former occupant who was supposed to be overseeing the bank bailouts.. not this President... remember that was in September of 2008. So how can he be blamed for them?
Yet, he has been by everyone from the right to a lot of people on the left... including Taibbi and Huffington...
"Tim Fernholz describes Taibbi's piece as "a factual mess," "a conspiracy theorist's dream," "pernicious for a lot of journalistic reasons," and sidestepping actual administration policy failures. "It's almost as if he cherry-picked what he thought would fit with his narrative," Fernholz adds." This is from Bob Cesca's blog.. which I read religiously. Bob does more research and has more credibility than most people out here.. he is a supporter, yet is critical of the President when he feels he should be... Ferholz joins others who feel the same way about Taibbi..
More from Bob's post on this:
"In Fernholz's corner, there's Oliver Willis who says Taibbi is "beclowning" himself. In Taibbi's corner is Glenn Greenwald who says Taibbi's item is "masterful."
Fight!
Adding... I'm staying out of this one. Suffice to say, I don't think the president has deliberately "sold out" anyone. Have at it."
The last part was totally Bob's words.. That's why I put them in bold... I agree.. Most people think the President took a lot of money from Wall Street.. Actually it was bundled money from EMPLOYEES... it was small donations bundled together into a large amount and then it looked like it came from Wall Street because it was put under the name of the company instead of the individuals.. why they did that I don't know.. but they did.. all of them do. I guess it is supposed to make them look more impressive or something.
As you see there are many sides to this story and just reading one article is not the answer.. There are more than one to see. Just because the House passed a bill is not the end of the story.. it still has to get through the Senate and then through the all knowing Reconciliation. That's when we will know what the bill is all about and whether we have to worry about being sold out or whatever.
If we are very worried.. NOW is the time to start working the phones and mail to get after the Senate and the House and let them know we want MORE Regulation..
For anyone who wants.. You can check out Bob's Blog at his site.. or find him through mine.
http://www.bobcesca.com/
Hi Annette,
Thanks for the well-thought out info. I may be guilty of taking Taibbi's article as gospel due to a strong dislike of Geithner and Summers,without looking for supporting info.
The name Bob Cesca rings a bell,these days I usually remember things about a week later.
You know,the name of a song or where I left some tools-or where I heard the name Cesca!
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.
"Linda,
I welcome and enjoy debate,but it's difficult when the other person has difficulty with reality."
Thank God! I was beginning to think it was just me who thought this exact thing. Don't expect much sympathy or bouts of reality from conservative republicans. It just doesn't suit them.
Post a Comment