The party of the little folks works its magic once again. They are going to bat for the folks who got us into this mess, to try to preserve their ability to do it again. It's immoral, un-American and defies logic. But it serves their financiers.

Tree, can you tell us what the bill will do? I mean specifically. Since you are advocating for it there be some sort of bill to support.

Originally Posted by Indiana_Geoff

Tree, can you tell us what the bill will do? I mean specifically. Since you are advocating for it there be some sort of bill to support.

That doesn't matter. Just because the Republicans want to change it means it MUST be perfect just the way it is.

Originally Posted by mikefast

That doesn't matter. Just because the Republicans want to change it means it MUST be perfect just the way it is.

'coz my Team is better than your Team, Nyaaahhh! ?

Originally Posted by Treetop

The party of the little folks works its magic once again.

I thought that was the Dems? The Repubs are the party of the big folks.

From what I recall, this bill would be a significant increase in the power of the Executive Branch, with a $50? billion fund for bailing out (i.e. protecting from market risk) financial institutions of its choice. The opportunity for hanki-panki would be significant.

We need smart, transparent financial reform. The Dodd bill may not be that as of yet.

WSJ opinion:

.....this legislation would allow regulators, without a vote of Congress, to explicitly put the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley, among others. This list could have more than 8,000 names on it, because any bank or company that owns a bank, or is a affiliated with a company that owns a bank, is eligible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...012449686.html

What's the fuss? The Democrats don't need any help from the Republicans, they passed healthcare reform without a single Republican vote. Just do that same thing again.

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

'coz my Team is better than your Team, Nyaaahhh! ?

Unfortunately, here in the U.S. it is becoming that way more and more. If one party wants something, the other party won't. Not because it's good or bad for the country, but the party is now more important than the country. And like it or not, right or wrong, the guy we have occupying the White House now is the most divisive President that we have ever had.

Originally Posted by mikefast

Unfortunately, here in the U.S. it is becoming that way more and more. If one party wants something, the other party won't. Not because it's good or bad for the country, but the party is now more important than the country. And like it or not, right or wrong, the guy we have occupying the White House now is the most divisive President that we have ever had.

Well, only if you guys want it to be so... and that would be sad!

Originally Posted by mikefast

Unfortunately, here in the U.S. it is becoming that way more and more. If one party wants something, the other party won't. Not because it's good or bad for the country, but the party is now more important than the country. And like it or not, right or wrong, the guy we have occupying the White House now is the most divisive President that we have ever had.

But, I thought he was all about the reach-arou..., er, Reach Across the aisle?

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

Well, only if you guys want it to be so... and that would be sad!

It is sad. I'll agree with that. But unfortunately, that is the way it is now. That is why I think there should be term limits. We should get rid of those that have been in for years.

Originally Posted by wrightme

But, I thought he was all about the reach-arou..., er, Reach Across the aisle?

Yeah, isn't that what "HE" ran as? The one who would bring us hope and change? Didn't quite work out that way did it?

Originally Posted by Norman Adlam

Well, only if you guys want it to be so... and that would be sad!

The divisiveness comes mostly from the big O. He's the first president to ever criticize the SCOTUS during a State of the Union Address. That behavior is typical of his, "I'm the only one whose opinion counts," mentality.

GOP Minority Leader Called Out Over Big Banks

Oranator

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

The divisiveness comes mostly from the big O. He's the first president to ever criticize the SCOTUS during a State of the Union Address. That behavior is typical of his, "I'm the only one whose opinion counts," mentality.

My, oh my. How ironic that sounds.

One might conceivably state that Obama's election has caused a lot of divisiveness, but to claim the divisiveness comes from him, takes the cake.

It's a bit like blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

The divisiveness comes mostly from the big O. He's the first president to ever criticize the SCOTUS during a State of the Union Address. That behavior is typical of his, "I'm the only one whose opinion counts," mentality.

What you say might be true, but he doesn't append here, I'm afraid you guys do!