Fantastic fuming by David Reilly, a Bloomberg reporter:
I quickly discovered why members of Congress rarely read legislation like this. At 1,279 pages, the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” is a real slog. And yes, I plowed through all those pages. (Memo to Chairman Frank: “ystem” at line 14, page 258 is missing the first “s”.)
The reading was especially painful since this reform sausage is stuffed with more gristle than meat. At least, that is, if you are a taxpayer hoping the bailout train is coming to a halt.
[...] Instead, it supports the biggest banks. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.
Check out the entire article at Bloomberg.
#12, deowll
#8 I’d be more impressed if I thought you had actually looked.
I’d be even more impressed if I didn’t think you were delusional.
For example you like the Senate health care bill …
Now that is just stupendous! You criticize Fusion and then ramble off into some other bullshit. So what was wrong with Fusion’s post? Can’t you find any factual errors? No, you can only revert to the Republican true and tried position of changing the subject.
Things sure look dismal for us liberals. Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress are acting just like Republicans: sucking up to the big boys, giving away the store, just like Republicans have been doing for decades.
So why are you wingnuts bitching? You wanted a Republican elected, you got a Democrat who acts like a Republican. You think McCain would have done anything different? The only thing different he would have done is the health care thing, he wouldn’t have even tried to get health care for everyone. Everything else, he would have done the same. Or worse — he would have given more money to the bankers with more sweetheart deals. Because Republicans have always been more cozy ‘n cuddly with the big money boys than the Democrats.
So what are you bitching about? You got your Republican elected — if it quacks, waddles, and swims like a duck…
@Ah_Yea,
Fusion and Dallas have it basically right on this one. Go read the Bloomberg article. It is an incredibly misleading headline. I see the $4 trillion, but it requires a 99% guarantee of payback which is nearly impossible. If there was a 99% guarantee of payback, a foreign sovereign wealth fund would buy it first. I also see a bond backing, which does sound like a bad idea.
The bill does target Goldman Sachs’ unfair trading practices, it does target ridiculous pay schemes, it does create a consumer protection agency, it does fold the OTS (who I am quite familiar with) into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Overall not a great bill, but not a giant disaster either. Typical of our leaders from either side of the aisle to produce legislation that is milquetoast.
I think it’s time for a series of banking monopoly break-ups, much like the government did with Bell Telephone back in the 1980s. There are a few banks that control too much of the United States’ economy to be trusted implicitly.
Glass half full? This will put an end to that annoying ‘socialist’ talk. You can’t be a socialist if you’re taking a trillion from the people (tax payers) and giving it to private for-profit capitalist companies. That’s the OPPOSITE of socialism. Socialists don’t hand money over to private S&L, banks, and insurance companies. We don’t have socialists, we have two corporate whore parties…and their idiot followers who “pretend” they’re entirely different because of one or two symbolic votes.
#25 Thank you, GHF! I agree, can we perhaps get the wingnuts to STFU with their nonsensical babbling about socialism???
#14 OK, I rushed to read your suggested 6 pager opinion from RollingStone after eating breakfast, playing with photographs I took last night and reading some real news (not here).
Interesting but admittedly I got the gist in the first couple of pages and did not read the whole thing. I may go back but it’s New Years Eve and I’m getting into the groove.
Comments:
* You know what they say about opinions? Good. That’s what first comes to mind.
* I would grant you some things cited are counter to what Obama said he would do. I also promised each of my nephews a computer for Christmas but due to unforeseen circumstances, they had to share two new ones.
* Obama has and continues to have a clear vision for the long term success and competitiveness for the country. I still believe that and support him. You should too after you get over the fact he’s black.
* Obama is trustworthy, unlike the secret regime of the Cheney presidency. Excuse me while I throw up on your new found concern for honesty.
* I’m afraid that the economic abyss left by President Cheney and his chimp necessitates sleeping with the devil – bankers, lawyers and insurance companies.
* I don’t expect ‘Joe the Plumber’ sheeps of America to have a clue what it takes to dig ourselves out of the hole your party left.
* I am amongst the top 5% in accumulated wealth or income. Yet I don’t expect that 5% of the population to pay 5% of taxes. I believe in Capitalism and the American system. I believe taxes are still paid in the country when money changes hands.
* I am amongst top 3% in education. Still, I don’t pretend to know what it takes to solve our problems but I do know there are good and smart people trying to do just that. It will take running over a few Republicans looking out for the next election but I’m good with that.
So, unlike you who simply pointed to some cherry picked internet site that supports your views, I went out of my way to read it and respond to you. Your welcome!
#27 Excuse me while I throw up on your new found concern for honesty.
Great line, I laughed because it’s so true!
Well Dallas, you’re more optimistic about Obama than I am. I hope you’re right…
#28 Optimistic indeed about our country but it takes leadership to see it through. I know a good leader when I see one.
Evidently the world community agrees by awarding him a Nobel Peace Prize for his vision and courage to take the world’s most powerful nation to next level. Hopefully rule by fear and viewing the world with dated cold war era goggles is gone.
As a technologist, I’m particularly excited about the prospects of this country leading in renewable energy. It promises to be even bigger than the current semiconductor industry (which I am a part of), you watch.
#29 Dallas
Totally agree that the US’s big opportunity is high tech, and has been since WWII. But to be leader in renewable energy the government needs to subsidize research, right now they’re way behind.
That’s what normal economies do, not just manipulate the political system to make money doing things any way you want. As it is, the US is spending less and less on research that’s not intended directly for military application. Had the bailout money gone to pure research into alternative energies, by now you’d have some very lucrative patents and a budding industry that creates jobs. Seems like the americans only like paying taxes when they’re getting screwed over, and anything that sounds like investing in the future is a scam.
#14, Ah Yea,
Hey Fusion, Dallas, Obamapologistforever,
I want you to read my link in post #5 and hear your winy little excuses when the truth smacks you upside your knotty little heads.
The problem is what should I read. The whole article?. The headline? The source? The whole thing? You are so mentally deficient you neglected to tell us.
As I have repeated many times. I don’t read an article or book just because you, or anyone, want me to. Reference your point, or if necessary quote a small part of it. If your reference intrigues me I will research it deeper. If, as it appears this is, the article is just another bullshit piece I’ll ignore it.
Now, I would like you to read the Communist Manifesto. No, I doubt you would gain anything as it was written in very dry language and translated into English. Too far above your comprehension. Yet it is a seminal work in the history of sociology and economics.
And no, unlike you, I didn’t come in my pants asking you to read it.
#5 Ah Yeah
Ah Thanks, for the link, what a wholly depressing article. Well written and documented. What’s really baking my noodle is what the hell all this means. I mean, we always knew the system stank, but at least before they made an effort at discretion. I find it frightening that they no longer try.
From: Obamaforever
To: All Tea Baggers
To: Cherman
Quote:
It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes.
End of quote.
Dear Tea Baggers;
Please direct me to where in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act it says that we will provide $4 trillion in emergency funding to Wall Street. Please be specific and provide the link.
Cherman, since this is your article, I suggest you do the heavy lifting and provide the information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS Ah_Yea, if I want any crap from you I will squeeze your pointed head.
#33, Obamaforever,
Wear a glove. Better yet, double up and wear two gloves.
Lest we forget, the entire problem came from Gramm-Leach-Bliley 1999 (guess what party these 3 bill sponsors came from…)
Democrats seem to have a masochistic streak, being more than happy to take punishment for Republican financial idiocy.