Why Is The GOP Against Financial Reform??? (employment, Clinton, independent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Page 134.. You can ask numerous times, the answer wont change..
This is also discussed in great detail by Geitherner on Meet the Press Meet the Press- msnbc.com who not only says the intent is the takeover of these banks, but also the bill has GOP support.
This bill is the first step in regulating derivatives. Which are currently wholly unregulated. Do I agree with Republicans like Scott Brown who think that even more regulation of these instruments is needed? Yes. Do I agree with conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln that we have to start somewhere? Yes.
Do I think the opposition to this bill is not because of the content of the bill but because Republicans have adopted a stance to fight anything sponsored by Democrats? Yes.
And I think it's a p***-poor way to represent their constituents.
They aren't interested in representing constituents. They're too busy defending a paradigm, their careers, and their special interests at the expense of America's future.
I do not blame Dems or Repubs for the rules of the game they're subject to for a century. I hold all accountable who perpetuate it, denying anything is foul, and see fit to defend the very thing killing America. Insult to injury they salt the wound claiming it's an act of patriotism.
How so is the financial collapse solely the fault of the government?
You can blame them for most everything. It's not hard to do that. But the events that brought on the financial collapse were related to a number of different things, some of which the government was involved in and could have handled better, and some of which the government was not involved.
I've got issues with this bill. I agree with Scott Brown that the regulation of derivatives doesn't go far enough. I agree with other Republicans about granting bank status to financial entities that are not banks, along with the privileges that bank status confers. These are problems.
But I think Republicans are challenging bills strictly for partisan reasons, not based on the content of the bills, and that is not a good thing.
then why cant we fix the problems republicans are pointing out?
why do we have to have a bad bill? Havent we seen that change for the sake of change is not always the best option?
we need serious reform. derivatives need to be regulated. AND changes to correct the CRA that force banks to lend to people who cannot afford to pay back the loans needs to be added.
AND Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack and the 5 largest banks dont need to be exempted.
This bill is the first step in regulating derivatives. Which are currently wholly unregulated. Do I agree with Republicans like Scott Brown who think that even more regulation of these instruments is needed? Yes. Do I agree with conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln that we have to start somewhere? Yes.
Do I think the opposition to this bill is not because of the content of the bill but because Republicans have adopted a stance to fight anything sponsored by Democrats? Yes.
And I think it's a p***-poor way to represent their constituents.
The amount of capital to invest in derivatives has increased substantially since the collapse of the economy. Companies have realised that if they were going to pay someone to insure their investments, that the capital needs to exist to backup the insurance. There indeed needs to be further federal regulation in the industry, but this step needs to be taking by the SEC, and be created without the federal government taking over failed financial institutions putting the taxpayers at risk. Thats EXACTLY what this bill does.. It moves these organizations from the bankruptcy process to a federal takeover. Under the bankrutpcy process, investors have their capital at risk, under a federal takeover.. its taxpayers.
Anyone who thinks taxpayers should not be put at risk, should be shouting NO to this bill, and not blindly supporting it without knowing what you are supporting because it was proposed by Obama..
then why cant we fix the problems republicans are pointing out?
why do we have to have a bad bill? Havent we seen that change for the sake of change is not always the best option?
we need serious reform. derivatives need to be regulated. AND changes to correct the CRA that force banks to lend to people who cannot afford to pay back the loans needs to be added.
AND Fannie Mae and Freddy Mack and the 5 largest banks dont need to be exempted.
lets get the bill right.
It's not a bad bill. It's just not a perfect bill. None of our laws are perfect.
But if Republicans are going to fight and filibuster everything sponsored by Democrats, they damage their own credibility. It's partisanship, pure and simple.
Page 134.. You can ask numerous times, the answer wont change..
This is also discussed in great detail by Geitherner on Meet the Press Meet the Press- msnbc.com who not only says the intent is the takeover of these banks, but also the bill has GOP support.
That is the section about orderly liquidation. I assume then, you would prefer a disorderly process. Okay.
They are also shouting that taxpayers shouldnt be put at risk, but if they read the bill it actually increases the taxpayers risk because it moves any failed financial institutions from a bankruptcy court, where investors would be at risk, to a federal oversight, which puts investors at risk.
They are just supporting the bill because it was proposed by Obama and dont even understand that the bill is a perminant bailout plan on banks at the taxpayers expense..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.