Hope and Change? Not so fast - Dems shut down house wanting to kill Wall st. reforms

[Zebo]

Actions speak louder than words and corporate whores for hire is all I see. You righties have NOTHING to worry about so please stop with the 'socialists' talk. Think Fascists! (merger of corp and state)

------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/bank-friendly-dems-shut-d_n_386200.html
Bank-Friendly Dems Shut Down House, Threaten To Kill Wall Street Reform

A group of Democrats friendly to Wall Street interests forced a delay in consideration of the landmark financial regulatory reform bill scheduled to hit the House floor on Wednesday, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told reporters in the Speaker's lobby.

Frank accused the New Democrat Coalition of blocking the bill because its members are being prodded by big banks to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and to allow major financial institutions to avoid state laws tougher than federal regulations.

A Democratic leadership aide confirmed that centrist and conservative Democrats are threatening to vote no, leaving the caucus short of the needed votes.

"The big banks in particular are trying to get more preemption," said Frank. "It's a state-consumer battle with the big banks. We want compromise. They want to offer an amendment that makes it easier to preempt state consumer laws."

New Dem Vice Chair Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) is demanding that her preemption amendment, which would in effect mean that state regulations on the financial industry could be no tougher than federal guidelines, be given a vote on the House floor. It was first beaten back in committee in October.

Bean and other advocates of preemption say that uniform national standards are preferable to allowing each state to make different rules. Opponents note that federal regulators have been less than adept over the past several years at reining in corruption and excess.

Blue Dog Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) is also pushing an amendment that would abolish the CFPA, a top priority of the administration and the brainchild of Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, said Frank.

Minnick worked to defeat the CFPA in committee but was unsuccessful. While the House sits in recess, leadership and opponents of reform within the caucus are negotiating their way out of the deadlock.

When a bloc of Democrats wants to exert its influence in an extreme way, it threatens to "take down the rule" -- legislative lingo for, in effect, blocking consideration of the bill on the floor.
Story continues below

When Frank was first asked whether Democratic leadership had the votes it needed to proceed on the floor, six loud bells rang out.

"Do you know what you're listening to now?" asked Frank. "They're now sounding six bells. Do you know what that means? It means a recess. What do you think, the kids have to go out and play in the yard? That's your answer."

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told HuffPost he had the same political instincts. "If they had the votes, we'd be out there debating the rule," said a smiling Boehner. "It's that simple."

UPDATE: 9:10 p.m. "New Dems have reached an agreement that includes a balanced compromise on our key issues. This agreement will allow us to create an empowered Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will place tough new federal regulations on financial institutions from large banks to payday lenders to mortgage brokers," reads a statement put out by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), Chair of the New Democrat Coalition and Bean, New Dem Vice-Chair and Co-Chair of the New Dem Financial Services Task Force.

"We look forward to continuing to work with House Leadership and the Obama Administration on enacting comprehensive reform that will achieve our long stated goals of overhauling our nation's financial regulations to ensure more effective oversight, greater transparency and robust consumer protection."

The deal, HuffPost is told, has been reached in principle and allows a Murphy/McMahon/Kratovil amendment relating to derivatives used by end users to go to the floor.

And instead of getting a floor amendment, Bean will get some of her language on preemption inserted into the manager's amendment that Frank will introduce.

The agreement clears the bill to move forward.

 

[werepossum]

Oh sweet lord, not yet another bureaucracy!

 

[Craig234]

Oh sweet lord, not yet another bureaucracy!

The Dems who are sellouts to the financial industy are horrible, and very important to defeat like the Repuiblicans who have sold out to the financial industry are.

This is a public industry versus corruption issue and our government is all too compromised. Few Americans paid any attention to who was paying for the campqaign ads before and many wrong people are in office.

Notice how many names of those who are the sellouts are unknown? We need to back the progressive Dems, and righties would do well to ask if they don't have some things in common with progressives.

We've always had a problem when righties simply accept the words of the Republicans and ignore the deeds, and blindly assume progressive Dems are just about big wasteful government.

Progressive dems are the only faction who are really out for the public interest and willing to stand up to the abuse of power by big industries. THey want those induistries to do well - but not by abuse.

There only real altetnatives are sellout Republicans, sellout Democrats, or Libertarians who unwittingly will let the big corporations get away with murder as well.

 

[werepossum]

The Dems who are sellouts to the financial industy are horrible, and very important to defeat like the Repuiblicans who have sold out to the financial industry are.

This is a public industry versus corruption issue and our government is all too compromised. Few Americans paid any attention to who was paying for the campqaign ads before and many wrong people are in office.

Notice how many names of those who are the sellouts are unknown? We need to back the progressive Dems, and righties would do well to ask if they don't have some things in common with progressives.

We've always had a problem when righties simply accept the words of the Republicans and ignore the deeds, and blindly assume progressive Dems are just about big wasteful government.

Progressive dems are the only faction who are really out for the public interest and willing to stand up to the abuse of power by big industries. THey want those induistries to do well - but not by abuse.

There only real altetnatives are sellout Republicans, sellout Democrats, or Libertarians who unwittingly will let the big corporations get away with murder as well.

I fear government much more than corporations. There aren't that many products I can't live without, corporations have to compete for my dollars, and corporations can't send men with guns to run me off my land, take my house, or imprison me. Or at least they can't without government complicity. The chance of me voting for a "progressive Democrat" is effectively zero; only if a Klansman is running and likely to win would I ever consider it.

 

[Craig234]

I fear government much more than corporations. There aren't that many products I can't live without, corporations have to compete for my dollars, and corporations can't send men with guns to run me off my land, take my house, or imprison me. Or at least they can't without government complicity. The chance of me voting for a "progressive Democrat" is effectively zero; only if a Klansman is running and likely to win would I ever consider it.

THat's a very helpflul post to discuss the issue.

I think you are very misguided and the post is good for me to say some things how you are.

Fiirst, you need to stop making the distinction between government and corporations to the extent you are, insofar as recognizing the common issue of 'concentrated power' as a threat.

Look at history - there didn't used to be much distinction. Money and power went hand in hand to anelite class while most had to serve them to survive, and that was that. Government and money were together.

For example, the European monarchies - Queen Elizabeth created the first global corporation in the East India company which existed simply to have an entity they could send around the world to get loot while providing immunity for any bad acts to its owners the noble class. This company was at the heart of the American revolution as the government - the same as the corporation - gave the company it profited from exemption from the big taxes it placed on coonists' businesses that did not profit the nobles, making them unabe to compete. That's what was called 'taxes without representation'.

The theory in our system was to free the people from such abuses by the powerful - who were both 'th government' and 'the corporation' - with democracy. The 'consent of the governed'.

This did not elimate the issue of powerful concentrated inmterests - it merely diluted theis power and made them have to compromised with the public more, at least when an FDR got elected and passed measures to help the public interest, as there were still many wealthy peope but the middle class was able to thrive as well and the disparities in wealth were lower.

The question is, how much are we going to let the concentrated wealth - now technicaslly separated from the elected government - control that government?

The same conflicts of intrrest exist that always have, but they're not much honestly described. The people who are gong to represent the concentrated wealth aren't going to say that'[s what they're doing in a democracy - they're going to try to sell to the public. In modern times that involves propanda like 'trickle down' and 'ownership society' and demonizing 'liberals' to get support, propaganda created with the help of well funded right-wing think tanks whose only real purpose is to create the propaganda.

You talk about being sent to a foreign war by the government and not by corporations - have you seen the Gen. Smedly Butler quote I sometimes post about how after his career as the most highly decorated person in history, he looked back at his dozens of campaigns and concluded they were all corrupt policies with no purpose other than to use violence to further the interests of corporations?

The thing you left out in yoiur fear of government over corporations is that you get to elect the government, putting some limits on its harm to the public, while corproations have no such constraint - they are simply the concentrated power of history and can destroy you economicall, and in other ways when they control the government.

The government has no inherent agenda - it's the agenda of the people elected, who can care about the poor, the middle class, or the corporate class - anyone.

So you need to decide if you want government for the average American or government for the concentrated power. If you elect goverment for concentrated power, then you can't say you are more afraid of the government than of the corporation, because they are the same thing.

The progressive democrats are the only major faction who have an agenda for the average American ahead of the concentrated power.

You need to pick. You can not vote for them but you will be complianing about government forever when you get someone else in power.

Do you really think it helps for you to demand the people get into office who represent concentrated power, and then be upset that they do just that?

Usually the politicians can hide their agenda and defend the status quo, but times like these expose whoi they really serve, when there are clear choices like Wall Street reform.

You complain about the government - and then yoiu say you want to elect the same people who you are upset with, not the progressive dems who have better policies.

That's the irrational position why our country is having such problems. You are the target of massive propaganda to have that position, though.

 

[Zebo]

The Dems who are sellouts to the financial industy are horrible, and very important to defeat like the Repuiblicans who have sold out to the financial industry are.

This is a public industry versus corruption issue and our government is all too compromised. Few Americans paid any attention to who was paying for the campqaign ads before and many wrong people are in office.

Notice how many names of those who are the sellouts are unknown? We need to back the progressive Dems, and righties would do well to ask if they don't have some things in common with progressives.

We've always had a problem when righties simply accept the words of the Republicans and ignore the deeds, and blindly assume progressive Dems are just about big wasteful government.

Progressive dems are the only faction who are really out for the public interest and willing to stand up to the abuse of power by big industries. THey want those induistries to do well - but not by abuse.

There only real altetnatives are sellout Republicans, sellout Democrats, or Libertarians who unwittingly will let the big corporations get away with murder as well.

+1 You write what I wish i could.

 

[werepossum]

THat's a very helpflul post to discuss the issue.

I think you are very misguided and the post is good for me to say some things how you are.

Fiirst, you need to stop making the distinction between government and corporations to the extent you are, insofar as recognizing the common issue of 'concentrated power' as a threat.

Look at history - there didn't used to be much distinction. Money and power went hand in hand to anelite class while most had to serve them to survive, and that was that. Government and money were together.

For example, the European monarchies - Queen Elizabeth created the first global corporation in the East India company which existed simply to have an entity they could send around the world to get loot while providing immunity for any bad acts to its owners the noble class. This company was at the heart of the American revolution as the government - the same as the corporation - gave the company it profited from exemption from the big taxes it placed on coonists' businesses that did not profit the nobles, making them unabe to compete. That's what was called 'taxes without representation'.

The theory in our system was to free the people from such abuses by the powerful - who were both 'th government' and 'the corporation' - with democracy. The 'consent of the governed'.

This did not elimate the issue of powerful concentrated inmterests - it merely diluted theis power and made them have to compromised with the public more, at least when an FDR got elected and passed measures to help the public interest, as there were still many wealthy peope but the middle class was able to thrive as well and the disparities in wealth were lower.

The questionis, how much are we going to let the concentrated wealth - now tecn

That's the most muddled ideology I've ever seen on these or any boards. Are you perchance in need of sleep? You tell me I "need to stop making the distinction between government and corporations to the extent you are, insofar as recognizing the common issue of 'concentrated power' as a threat." Then you tell me I need to vote for progressive (liberal) Democrats who will protect me - by vastly increasing the power of government. So the two are essentially the same thing, but I should vote for people who will grow the strength of one part to protect me from the other part? That is insane.

There is no greater advocate of concentrated power than Denis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi or Barrack Hussein Obama.

 

[cubby1223]

We need to back the progressive Dems

No we don't. You too will soon be reminded that all power corrupts.

And if you haven't noticed, conservatives aren't even backing the Republican party either, we've learned our ways, and we want them replaced just as you want your corrupt Democrats replaced.

 

[Robor]

(sigh) Will we ever learn? :\

 

[Ausm]

The Dems who are sellouts to the financial industy are horrible, and very important to defeat like the Repuiblicans who have sold out to the financial industry are.

This is a public industry versus corruption issue and our government is all too compromised. Few Americans paid any attention to who was paying for the campqaign ads before and many wrong people are in office.

Notice how many names of those who are the sellouts are unknown? We need to back the progressive Dems, and righties would do well to ask if they don't have some things in common with progressives.

We've always had a problem when righties simply accept the words of the Republicans and ignore the deeds, and blindly assume progressive Dems are just about big wasteful government.

Progressive dems are the only faction who are really out for the public interest and willing to stand up to the abuse of power by big industries. THey want those induistries to do well - but not by abuse.

There only real altetnatives are sellout Republicans, sellout Democrats, or Libertarians who unwittingly will let the big corporations get away with murder as well.

I agree, hopefully Democratic Americans will wake up and vote these idiots out of office.

 

[Vette73]

So in other words SOME "centrist and conservative Democrats" and ALL republicans are in the pockets of big banks.

Got it.


It says they need the Dems vote to move it forward. If even just some Republcinas were for Wall St/Bank reform then it would pass. So that tells me that ALL republicans would leave things the way they were when Bush and Rep. had full control, i.e. before this whole mess

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I fear government much more than corporations. There aren't that many products I can't live without, corporations have to compete for my dollars, and corporations can't send men with guns to run me off my land, take my house, or imprison me. Or at least they can't without government complicity. The chance of me voting for a "progressive Democrat" is effectively zero; only if a Klansman is running and likely to win would I ever consider it.

You seem to miss the point, the question is not wether to fear corporations or government. The question is which do you fear more, goverment controlled by corporations or independent government. The big lie from the right is that they support smaller government which the previous admin proved is pure and utter bullshit, they don't want smaller government they want their corporate interests to control government. You say you can choose which corporations will get your dollars, so I guess you chose to bail out the investment banks and pay them millions in bonuses? You must have also choosen to provide oil companies with record profits while the rest of the economy crashed?

The big business vs. government argument is the ultimate strawman.

The whole concept of government is that economic, domestic and foriegn policy decisions be made by representatives elected by the people. Not by corporate CEO's in board rooms whose main object is profit for a few and who are beyond the reach of the voters.

When I go to the poles I expect to be voting for the people who will make decisions on my behalf, not for some mindless stooges that only pull the levers when told by their corporate sponsers.

 

[Vette73]

No we don't. You too will soon be reminded that all power corrupts.

And if you haven't noticed, conservatives aren't even backing the Republican party either, we've learned our ways, and we want them replaced just as you want your corrupt Democrats replaced.

Yep.


There is even infighting in the Tea Party as many now see its republicans using them.
There are slimy people in both parties and some are just seeing its not a party issue, but a PERSON issue. But so many vote based on the party name a lot of slim balls are getting in.
I use to consider myself a republican when i was younger, but thats been a long time.

 

[alchemize]

"Democrats are diverse minded thinkers who don't work in lockstep. So we need to throw out those moderate democrats who don't work in lockstep to be more like the Republican party (only the other end of the spectrum). Simply owning the house, senate and presidency isn't enough, we need true and complete dominance of government to succeed. But really, we're quite different than republicans because all of our political opinions aren't opinions, they are facts based on logic and you are stupid if you think otherwise."

 

[Robor]

"Democrats are diverse minded thinkers who don't work in lockstep. So we need to throw out those moderate democrats who don't work in lockstep to be more like the Republican party (only the other end of the spectrum). Simply owning the house, senate and presidency isn't enough, we need true and complete dominance of government to succeed. But really, we're quite different than republicans because all of our political opinions aren't opinions, they are facts based on logic and you are stupid if you think otherwise."

I threw that first sentence into Google to try and see who said it. The first hit was interesting... LINK :awe:

 

[cubeless]

"Democrats are diverse minded thinkers who don't work in lockstep. So we need to throw out those moderate democrats who don't work in lockstep to be more like the Republican party (only the other end of the spectrum). Simply owning the house, senate and presidency isn't enough, we need true and complete dominance of government to succeed. But really, we're quite different than republicans because all of our political opinions aren't opinions, they are facts based on logic and you are stupid if you think otherwise."

heyuk, heyuk, heyuk... but craig says it's only republicans who be like that, so hush'm up, buford...

 

[StageLeft]

So in other words SOME "centrist and conservative Democrats" and ALL republicans are in the pockets of big banks.

Got it.


It says they need the Dems vote to move it forward. If even just some Republcinas were for Wall St/Bank reform then it would pass. So that tells me that ALL republicans would leave things the way they were when Bush and Rep. had full control, i.e. before this whole mess

That's what I got out of that, too. Basically all republicans are crap and many democrats are but not the progressive ones.

I think the reason so many politicians are corporate caulk suckers is not because they are, or at least were, terrible people but because the system shaped them to be.

How ridiculous is it that _corporations_--NOT necessarily people--spend so much money wining and dining these politicians? I realize corporations are made up of people but there is certainly a difference in motivations of a person and a corporation. Who are these politicians supposed to be answering to? How is it acceptable that a bill can come along and then millions of lobbying dollars later it becomes usurped because corporate interests didn't like it?

 

[alchemize]

Fucking moronic article (Robor's link):

"The Republican position on abortion is whatever Rush says, and you are not allowed to disagree under any circumstances. If you do disagree, you can’t be a Republican, and if you continue to disagree, threats of violence will be made against you. If you continue to disagree and have some prominence and are at a public event of some kind, people with guns will show up outside the door.

Are you listening to me? People with guns will show up if they don’t like what you are saying. You are getting that, right?"

 

[Robor]

Fucking moronic article (Robor's link):

"The Republican position on abortion is whatever Rush says, and you are not allowed to disagree under any circumstances. If you do disagree, you can’t be a Republican, and if you continue to disagree, threats of violence will be made against you. If you continue to disagree and have some prominence and are at a public event of some kind, people with guns will show up outside the door.

Are you listening to me? People with guns will show up if they don’t like what you are saying. You are getting that, right?"

Try and sort through the drama. It's pretty much true outside of that.

Edit: The 'drama llama' is funny.

 

[Craig234]

That's what I got out of that, too. Basically all republicans are crap and many democrats are but not the progressive ones.

I think the reason so many politicians are corporate caulk suckers is not because they are, or at least were, terrible people but because the system shaped them to be.

How ridiculous is it that _corporations_--NOT necessarily people--spend so much money wining and dining these politicians? I realize corporations are made up of people but there is certainly a difference in motivations of a person and a corporation. Who are these politicians supposed to be answering to? How is it acceptable that a bill can come along and then millions of lobbying dollars later it becomes usurped because corporate interests didn't like it?

Nice, a post I agree with. You got the all too rare balance between criticizing politicians. and not demonizing them, recognizing the system plays a big role in the problems.

There are a lot of good honest people who are not elected because of 'the system', and some who are yiou hear little about for the ame reason.

I'm disgusted that the winner of the Democratic primary had goldman sachs as his top private contributor.