• 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!

GOP senators block debate on finance bill

Chappy

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “GOP senators block debate on finance bill; The 57-41 vote marks the first showdown over the financial overhaul. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat, voted with the opposition.” By Janet Hook, Tribune Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2010 | 4:11 p.m.
[SIZE="+2"]S[/SIZE]enate Republicans, in a resolute show of unity, delayed consideration of far-reaching financial reforms by denying Democrats the needed supermajority of 60 votes. …
Click to expand...

“A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and fairness.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)†​

Somehow I thought one brave Republican would stand up for working people against the fat cats on Wall Street. How foolish was I? Not a single one? Incredible.
 
Interesting, this blockage will cause problems for them later on down the line. They're on the wrong side of this issue. I think we need some Congressional Pepto Bismal. :p
 
Wow, so you're saying that after all the moaning we've been hearing about the GOP blocking everything, it finally actually happened?
 
GOP not even willing to talk. I hate using the label "party of no" but they're not giving me much else to work with...
 
In all fairness, at least two Senate Republicans voted in favor of financial reform lesgistlation, i.e, Grassly, Snow, but most voted against it per this article from the NYTimes.com.

Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said that Republicans wanted to prevent a collapse like the one in 2008 but that Democrats were in danger of over-regulating the financial system and risked strangling the economy.

“That should be our first goal, prospectively trying to reduce systemic risk as much as possible,” he said. “The second goal should, however, be that we maintain what is a unique and really rare strength which America has, which is that we have the capacity as a country to create capital and credit in a very aggressive way so that entrepreneurs who are willing to, go out and take risks, have accuess to capital and credit and that creates jobs and that creates the dynamics of our economy.”

Mr. Gregg added, “We shouldn’t put in place a regulatory regime that overly reacts and, as a result, significantly dampens our capacity to have the most vibrant capital and credit markets in the world.”
Click to expand...

Hmmmm..."...create capital and credit in a very aggressive way so that entrepreneurs who are willing to, go out and take risks..."

Well, damn!?! Isn't that what got this country in the trouble it's in now? Taking too much unregulated, un-supervised risk? :doh

And here we have a Republican in Congress doing his best double-talk. Seems to me this guy and his party seems to be more in favor of the special interest than he is people's retirement plans or investment portfolios or their very lives.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
“A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and fairness.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)†​

Somehow I thought one brave Republican would stand up for working people against the fat cats on Wall Street. How foolish was I? Not a single one? Incredible.
Click to expand...

How about telling us something about the bill...something specific that you support...then perhaps a reason the Republicans gave for opposing it?
 
Jerry said:
How about telling us something about the bill...something specific that you support...then perhaps a reason the Republicans gave for opposing it?
Click to expand...

They cannot - they are the "party of whine"
 
Ockham said:
They cannot - they are the "party of whine"
Click to expand...

Could you link to the section of the bill which regards "party of whine" and offer your own legal interpretation on how this quoted section will change the current policy please?
 
Jerry said:
Could you link to the section of the bill which regards "party of whine" and offer your own legal interpretation on how this quoted section will change the current policy please?
Click to expand...

You first, I'm sure your parliamentarian training over years and years gives you insight a mere legal mind would shudder to tread upon. You might find "party of whine" in the same section "the party of no" resides.
 
Ockham said:
You first, I'm sure your parliamentarian training over years and years gives you insight a mere legal mind would shudder to tread upon. You might find "party of whine" in the same section "the party of no" resides.
Click to expand...

I haven't formed an opinion on the legislation in question to then present any argument.

Notice how there's no link to the bill in the OP? There's a very good reason for that, and it's not because the author wanted to make a quality news thread.
 
“Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether.” — President Barack Obama†​

I agree with the president. Who here thinks that the Republicans actually want to ‘improve’ the bill? This is a process of watering down an already watered down bill. Perhaps, we should stop right here with Democrats fighting on the side of little guys and the Republicans voting in block on behalf of their Wall Street overlords.
 
Chappy said:
“Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether.” — President Barack Obama†​

I agree with the president. Who here thinks that the Republicans actually want to ‘improve’ the bill? This is a process of watering down an already watered down bill. Perhaps, we should stop right here with Democrats fighting on the side of little guys and the Republicans voting in block on behalf of their Wall Street overlords.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about :confused:
 
Chappy said:
“Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether.” — President Barack Obama†​

I agree with the president. Who here thinks that the Republicans actually want to ‘improve’ the bill? This is a process of watering down an already watered down bill. Perhaps, we should stop right here with Democrats fighting on the side of little guys and the Republicans voting in block on behalf of their Wall Street overlords.
Click to expand...

Who thinks the Democrats actually want to improve the bill? You said it yourself, until now the bill has been making its way solely through the Democrat Party; becoming watered down all the time. Just because the GOP is pausing (one can say for debate, or just illegitimize them as "obstructionists") for a week or two is hardly compelling evidence that the bill would've made it at all.
 
Chappy said:
“A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and fairness.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)†​

Somehow I thought one brave Republican would stand up for working people against the fat cats on Wall Street. How foolish was I? Not a single one? Incredible.
Click to expand...


Seems like the GOP wants to wait until the Messiah returns the contributions His Holiness recieved from Goldman Sachs before serious discussion of what actually needs to be done on financial market reform.

After all, the same Messiah RAMMED through a health-care bill that addressed the most pressing needs of the Democrat Party to takeover a major industrial sector, and didn't do squat about adressing the facts of medical care and costs. Why should anyone believe that Messiah when he's suddenly targeting the banks.

You know, the banks that hold our money and our retirement accounts.

We should take a year or so discussing what really needs to be done. That will give those illiterates in the House and Senate time to read the damned bill they write before they vote on it, and more importantly, it will give us time to see what kind of crooked deals they've tucked into the footnotes of the bill.

You people should stop demanding miracles from your Messiah and start seeing Him for what He is, a corrupt community organizer from a corrupt city.
 
Chappy said:
I agree with the president. Who here thinks that the Republicans actually want to ‘improve’ the bill?
Click to expand...

Who here thinks the Messiah has the best interests of America in mind when he demonizes an industry?
 
Jerry said:
I haven't formed an opinion on the legislation in question to then present any argument.
Click to expand...
Then wouldn't it make more sense for you to read/inform yourself to such an extent as to have an opinion before asking others to provide you their opinion? I'm almost sure seeking opinions before having a base understanding of the issue is not a recommended way to form one's own opinion on a subject.

Jerry said:
Notice how there's no link to the bill in the OP? There's a very good reason for that, and it's not because the author wanted to make a quality news thread.
Click to expand...
Intent of a thread is hardly the focus and a strawman at best. We thrive on issues and open debate, not fallacy request for information with the sole purpose of pointing out inadequacies of a OP thread.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Who here thinks the Messiah has the best interests of America in mind when he demonizes an industry?
Click to expand...
You have to see the President as a purely politically motivated person. His rhetoric is meant to stir populism and partisan political points. Were his motives pure with American's in the focus - the rhetoric would not be required only actionable legislation would do.

So to answer your question, no, his interests are not of America, but of how he is viewed politically, how he can manipulate the rhetoric and how to score political points and sway public opinion. Demonization of any industry is a means to an end only. When it suits him he names them "Titans of Industry" or "Wall Street Fat Cats" as the need arises and gets away with it.
 
Ockham said:
Then wouldn't it make more sense for you to read/inform yourself to such an extent as to have an opinion before asking others to provide you their opinion?
Click to expand...

So asking for information is now wrong in your eyes. Wow. FYI I did read the article in full before posting, but the article didn't say anything about the content of the bill, either.

Ockham said:
I'm almost sure seeking opinions before having a base understanding of the issue is not a recommended way to form one's own opinion on a subject.
Click to expand...

For you, perhaps, but not everyone is you. There's nothing wrong with encouraging discussion.

Ockham said:
Intent of a thread is hardly the focus and a strawman at best. We thrive on issues and open debate, not fallacy request for information with the sole purpose of pointing out inadequacies of a OP thread.
Click to expand...

You're not debating anything. You're "grandstanding". That's not debate.

For example:
“Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether.” — President Barack Obama†
Click to expand...

Oh right like I'm ever going to believe anything Obama has to say on any policy. That's like asking a Liberal to accept Bush's propaganda for the war in Iraq.

Another example:
“A party that stands with Wall Street is a party that stands against families and fairness.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)†
Click to expand...

Oh right like I'm going to believe anything Harry Reid has to say about any policy. That's like asking Liberals to support Sara Palin. here I can play that "because I say-so" game also: Anyone who supports abortion is against children and the family. See? Anyone can make unsupported partisan hyperbole. It's easy.

So a bill was blocked. So what. Maybe it should have been blocked, maybe not. What are the merits of the bill? What do Republicans claim are the flaws of the bill?

Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the bill at all and Republicans are just playing another game to get a bone from the majority.

So, you want to talk about the bill? Let's talk about the bill. How about the author of this thread toss up a link to the bill and give a few lines of unique content to spur the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
So asking for information is now wrong in your eyes. Wow. FYI I did read the article in full before posting, but the article didn't say anything about the content of the bill, either.
Click to expand...
No, asking for an opinion is, as I stated already.

Jerry said:
For you, perhaps, but not everyone is you. There's nothing wrong with encouraging discussion.
Click to expand...
Well, you were asking me, not everyone.

Jerry said:
You're not debating anything. You're "grandstanding". That's not debate.
Click to expand...
I never claimed to be debating anything. I'm answering your query.

Jerry said:
So a bill was blocked. So what. Maybe it should have been blocked, maybe not. What are the merits of the bill? What do Republicans claim are the flaws of the bill?
Click to expand...
An example of why you need to inform yourself and answer your own questions instead of asking opinions based on supposition to answer your questions.

Jerry said:
Perhaps there's nothing wrong with the bill at all and Republicans are just playing another game to get a bone from the majority.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

Jerry said:
So, you want to talk about the bill? Let's talk about the bill. How about the author of this thread toss up a link to the bill and give a few lines of unique content to spur the discussion.
Click to expand...

It sounds more like you want to talk about it. So how about you post a link to the bill inform yourself and then we can discuss it. Why rely on others when inherently that reliance usually results in disappointment?
 
Areopagitican said:
Republicans Preparing Rival Financial Regulation Plan - NYTimes.com

Of course, it has to be that the GOP has been bought by Wall Street. Not that, well, they have original ideas of their own.

Well, whatever furthers the leftist narcissism.
Click to expand...

It is true that Wall Street has bought the Republican Party. It is also true that Wall street has bought the Democratic Party, which is the party that Goldman-Sachs has given the most money to. Today, there are hearings on the Goldman-Sachs fraud case. Want to make a wager that the Democrats won't cover it up? I will take that bet because the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Both parties have been bought by Wall Street, lock, stock, and barrel.
 
Do you think that Goldman Sachs got their money's worth in light of the Dodd bill?
 
Chappy said:
Do you think that Goldman Sachs got their money's worth in light of the Dodd bill?
Click to expand...

Do you think Barack Obama got his money's worth from Goldman Sachs donations?
 
I've read up on the main highlights of the bill, and I like about 70% of it and dislike 30%. The main thing I do like about the bill is that it would propose a company investing in derivatives and other high-risk, high-reward investments to spin off a separate division. As long as it doesn't lead to a plethora of DBAs pissing in their own bathwater, I'm all for it. It'll leave the free wheelers able to gamble on the future while middle America focuses on the present without the bottom potentially falling out from underneath them overnight.

Republicans probably shouldn't have blocked this. They're taking what little transparency Obama really will offer the people out of the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom