• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,357
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House - Yahoo! News

AP 2 hours ago

The House passed the most ambitious restructuring of federal financial regulations since the New Deal on Friday, aiming to head off any replay of last year's Wall Street failures that plunged the nation deep into recession.

The sprawling legislation would give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to oversee consumer banking transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that have escaped the oversight of regulators.

The vote was a party-line 223-202. No Republicans voted for the bill; 27 Democrats voted against it.

Not sure what to make of this. I think reforms need to be made in this area, but I don't know enough on the topic to know if these are the right reforms.
 
Just what we need, bigger and more intrusive government :roll:

They are clearly doing all they can now because they know their majority will be diminished after 2010.
 
Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House - Yahoo! News



Not sure what to make of this. I think reforms need to be made in this area, but I don't know enough on the topic to know if these are the right reforms.

I think the only reform they should is a "nobody is too big to fail".

If a huge business going under is really that much of a threat to the US economy then maybe they should consider placing limits on the size a company can grow, treat it like a monopoly.
 
More inept socialist/Marxist crazies taking steps to take over control of more of the economy and don't these absolute idiots have a wonderful record.

They have run Social Security to near total failure.

They have run Medicare deep into the red.

They screwed the pooch big time with with Cash for Clunkers ans sprnt ovr $24,000 per car to pay upto $4,500 per trage in on perfectly good cars.

Yes Congress has a track record alright. It's a record of being completely out of their element if the issue isn't bribes, and kick backs, waste fraud, abuse and pork barrel spending.

Heres a man with a plan; [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M"]YouTube- Congressional Candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West[/ame]

Lets al join hands a sing Kumbaya as the economic ship Titanic goes down for the count and dumb asses from both sides of the political isle celebrate their collective ineptness along with the Amateur in Chief Obama and his inner circle of radicals, jail birds, Socialist/Communist know nothings continue to pretend to be good at something when the truth is none of them has a clue of how to effect positive change. They all know how to lie and make empty promises to a stupid public the buys the BULL SHIITE they dish out every damn day.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
More inept socialist/Marxist crazies taking steps to take over control of more of the economy and don't these absolute idiots have a wonderful record.

What does this have to do with Marxism?
 
Just what we need, bigger and more intrusive government :roll:

They are clearly doing all they can now because they know their majority will be diminished after 2010.

Do you think there should be any reforms of our financial system, seeing the failures that culminated last year?
 
Do you think there should be any reforms of our financial system, seeing the failures that culminated last year?

I suspect that the recession wouldn't have become such a crisis if we had just let bad companies die and not had the government come in to "save" the day.
 
I suspect that the recession wouldn't have become such a crisis if we had just let bad companies die and not had the government come in to "save" the day.

But there was still shady and unsustainable things going on, regardless. I mean, look at the mess in the housing market.
 
What does this have to do with Marxism?

Surely you jest. You must be educated enough know that the basic break down of a society into Socialism/Maxism requires economic strife and the goals of the two are almost identical with the main difference being how they are arrived at.

Socialism comes through lying to convince empty headed fools to vote for it.
Marxist power comes from the barrel of a gun according to Mao.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSllsTLkBsw"]YouTube- Obamas Right hand Man Andy Stern of SEIU[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ly473pZ6I"]YouTube- ┈━Crash Politics━┈ Obama Czar Agrees With Mao, Too, and Thinks Free Market is Nonsense[/ame]
 
Dav said:
I suspect that the recession wouldn't have become such a crisis if we had just let bad companies die and not had the government come in to "save" the day.

Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.

Do you really think letting the nation's largest financial institutions go bankrupt would have been better for the economy? :shock:

Councilman said:
Surely you jest. You must be educated enough know that the basic break down of a society into Socialism/Maxism requires economic strife and the goals of the two are almost identical with the main difference being how they are arrived at.

I'm educated enough to know that you don't know what Marxism/socialism are.
 
Last edited:
But there was still shady and unsustainable things going on, regardless. I mean, look at the mess in the housing market.

Yes, that's why we should have let those companies die rather than bail them out.

Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.

Recessions happen. Always have and always will.

Do you really think letting the nation's largest financial institutions go bankrupt would have been better for the economy? :shock:

Yes, they would have merged with or been bought by more responsible companies, or else they simply would have died and been replaced. Nobody is "too big to fail".
 
Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.

Do you really think letting the nation's largest financial institutions go bankrupt would have been better for the economy? :shock:



I'm educated enough to know that you don't know what Marxism/socialism are.

Again you show you ignorance. The banking system was set up to fail read the book "Confessions of and Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins to learn the big boys game. If you can't take the time to read it read it just watch the video.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8"]YouTube- Interview - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Part I[/ame]
 
Dav said:
Recessions happen. Always have and always will.

So your view is based in your faith that this system isn't going to collapse.

Councailman said:
Again you show you ignorance. The banking system was set up to fail read the book "Confessions of and Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins to learn the big boys game. If you can't take the time to read it read it just watch the video.

I already knew that the banking system was set up to fail. That's why I'm a Marxist. ;)

And yes I have read that book.
 
Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.

Do you really think letting the nation's largest financial institutions go bankrupt would have been better for the economy? :shock:



I'm educated enough to know that you don't know what Marxism/socialism are.


Obviously not that well educated if you make a statement like "Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.".

Have you not been paying attention for the past 5 years while the government doubled down on stupid and refused to make changes to the way Freddie and Fannie acted in the housing bubble period? Were you unaware that the government created the circumstances where the housing crisis was able to come into being? And when banks started to fail, look at how the winners and losers were being chosen by the bureaucrats in Washington. Who does or doesn't get bailed out seemed more dependent on personal links with Washington insiders than on real merit.

And the government spending Trillions on insurance reform, bailouts, democrat slush funds, etc. certainly hasn't strengthened the dollar or the national economy in any way.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
read up on the business cycle.

I am fully aware of the business cycle. I've specifically studied Kondratieff Waves (K-Waves) and Kuznets Swings, as well, so I think I'm more knowledgeable about these things than most people.

1 Easy Target said:
Obviously not that well educated if you make a statement like "Except the government didn't step in until some of the country's largest banking institutions went bankrupt and the economy was going down the tube.".

It's pretty obvious what I was referring to here.
 
So your view is based in your faith that this system isn't going to collapse.

No, my view, unlike yours, is supported by both logic and history.

And that would help, how?

It wouldn't encourage the kind of behavior that got us into the mess in the first place. If you're just going to get bailed out in the end, where's the disincentive?
 
I suspect that the recession wouldn't have become such a crisis if we had just let bad companies die and not had the government come in to "save" the day.

Not all companies that were going to "die" were necessarily bad. If a failing business is so large in scope in which it could trigger a financial meltdown, this legislation will help dissolve bankrupt companies without inducing a panic.
 
Dav said:
No, my view, unlike yours, is supported by both logic and history.

"Capitalism has never collapsed in all of the time it has been in existence, so it never will."

That logic?
 
"Capitalism has never collapsed in all of the time it has been in existence, so it never will."

That logic?

No, that's the history part, not the logic. Just look at how much all those regulations and spending bills helped to get out of the Great Depression.
 
The sprawling legislation would give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy

I have a huge probem with this. Who gets to decide which companies war broken up and on what grounds do they make that decision?

This is bad. I can see it already.
 
Major makeover of Wall Street regs passes House - Yahoo! News



Not sure what to make of this. I think reforms need to be made in this area, but I don't know enough on the topic to know if these are the right reforms.
I'm no expert either, but from what I've seen in the news I think the reformers need more reforming than Wall Street. I think that there may be problems on Wall Street, but they are being masked by screwups of the federal govt in their relationship with Wall Street. Frankly I think any perceived greed on Wall Street was exacerbated by govt policies at Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. The policies of the fed govt to force stupid risk taking on Wall Street was part of the cause.

Now the govt, who is going to be the expert on regulating Wall Street? Who are we kidding?
 
Back
Top Bottom