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.
Using stale populist rhetoric, Democrats dishonestly pit families against "banks" to generate enough support to pass a fiscal reform bill. But how many voters manipulated by the fear-mongering of Chris Dodd, Reid or Barack Obama fully understand reform? I sure don't. It's complex stuff, no doubt.
How many of us are aware that these derivatives that politicians rail against are financial tools that often allow people to hedge bets and take insurance on risk? As The New York Times recently reported, entities like Mars, the maker of M&M's, like to dip into the derivative market to insulate themselves from fluctuating prices of sugar and chocolate.
How many voters are aware that the pending Senate reform bill includes a payback to unions in the form of a "proxy access" that would allow labor to manipulate company boards? How many are aware that the bill may give the Treasury Department the right to seize private property and businesses without any significant judicial review?
How many Americans are aware that the reform bill might create a so-called "consumer protection board" that would slather another needless layer of federal red tape on a wide range of businesses — businesses, incidentally, with far less culpability in creating the housing bubble than members of the Senate Banking Committee?
At the same time, the board may also ban private, voluntary arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. Why?
How many voters are aware that the Senate reform bill clamps down on "angel investors" — wealthy individuals who invest in startups with few regulatory guidelines. From Google to Facebook, it was angel investors who undertook the initial risk.
What is appropriate risk? Well, who else but politicians and bureaucrats, both genetically disposed to avoid risk, could be better judges? That is the kind of micromanaging Washington is proposing. Would it not make more sense for government to disentangle itself from the market (and the bailouts), enhance transparency and simply enforce the rules already in place?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to add to the Senate version of H.4173 "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009" (S.3217 "The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010") an insertion that would make all supplements to be classified as drugs and thereby regulated by the Federal Trade Commission which gives them power to regulate supplements the same as drugs. This would give power to the FTC to regulate areas and products far outside their area of expertise.
This would be nothing short of the a death knell for the supplement industry and kill the option of many Americans to choose something other than expensive, by perscription only, and often dangerous drugs controled by Big Pharma.
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.
