Mach

NO. IT IS NOT.

Regulation of the economy is the establishment of RULES OF THE GAME. If you want no rules in the market, you get economic crisis because you allowed them the freedom to trash the market.

The government doesn't own the markets in the U.S. We do. The government doesn't control the markets, we do. That is, uneless you look at the fact that Wall Street can and does hold your economy hostage, by virtue of you allowing them to be free from rules that prohibit it!

Wake up man. You gave away your economic freedom to the highest bidder, and they bought you.

-Mach

obvious Child

Anyone who thinks a totally free market is acceptable, look at Somalia's economy during the warlord period or China's now.

__________________
No, cops cannot threaten to rape and murder your family during interrogations.

DivineComedy

I think we need to point out the word "regulate" in Article 1 Section 8; Republicans have a problem with that word "regulate."

"[W]hen was the last time someone asked you for $700bn? It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system."
Excerpts from House speaker Pelosi's speech | World news | guardian.co.uk

{I think that quote is off a little}

But, ignoring that, what is represented as her saying is exactly what was missing from the bill, a law from a lawmaker for the executive to regulate, so if you did not want someone to vote for the measure, remind them of what was missing; lawless household budget's debt to income ratio, anything-goes lawmaker mentality to a criminal 50% debt to income ratio at the Federal Reserve (who get their goals from Congress), no regulation of National Treasure Sweepstakes laughter by predatory usurers, no supervision of economic policy by the branch of government with all the powers to coin money and regulate the value thereof, and no good business discipline in the system.

The Republican criminals in Congress did not offer one single bit of regulation of the root cause of the problem in that Bailout, nor offer any regulations while rejecting it, and my Representative (Tom Feeney) put too big of a charge against stupid borrowers (who did not teach their lender how to figure debt to income ratios or what is wrong with giving a poor person an adjustable rate).

YouTube - Tom Feeney speaks on Taxpayer Bailout

So we are going to let the market go down the drain, because regulating the value of the money in a "free market" means letting the usurer and the ignorant set the value that affects our household management.

tryreading

If what you post is true, then the Republican controlled White House and the Republican controlled Congress were completely incompetent. Is it reasonable to continue to blame the other party when yours was in control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate during the period of time when Bush showed his concern, and McCain too? Why were they helpless? And did they act to make any changes? If so, why did they fail so miserably, when they were in charge?

Your post is loser talk. Loser and failure talk. Nothing but excuses, and childishly laying blame on the other guy.

sazerac

Did the republicans try to get legislation passed that would tighten the screws on Fannie & Freddie? Yes or no?

Did the democrats try to stop them? Yes or no?

You can't get a bill through the senate without 60 votes. It doesn''t matter who has the majority. Why can't the democratically controlled House and Senate end the war in Iraq as they promised? Why have they failed so miserably when they are in control? It's because they can't get 60 votes in the senate.

DivineComedy

It just does not look like the "Majority" worked hard enough.

S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
"Status:
Occurred: Introduced Jan 26, 2005
Not Yet Occurred: Reported by Committee -
Not Yet Occurred: Voted on in Senate -
Not Yet Occurred: Voted on in House -
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President -"
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

"Members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
109th Congress Democrats:

* Paul S. Sarbanes (Md.), Ranking Member
* Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
* Tim Johnson (S.D.)
* Jack Reed (R.I.)
* Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)
* Evan Bayh (Ind.)
* Thomas R. Carper (Del.)
* Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
* Robert Menendez (N.J.)

Republicans:

* Richard Shelby (Ala.), Chairman
* Robert Bennett (Utah)
* Wayne Allard (Colo.)
* Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
* Chuck Hagel (Neb.)
* Rick Santorum (Pa.)
* Jim Bunning (Ky.)
* Mike Crapo (Idaho)
* John E. Sununu (N.H.)
* Elizabeth Dole (N.C.)
* Mel Martinez (Fla.)"
(From SourceWatch)
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs - Congresspedia

"SEC. 1313. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF DIRECTOR.
`(a) DUTIES-
`(1) PRINCIPAL DUTIES- The principal duties of the Director shall be--
`(A) to oversee the prudential operations of each regulated entity, on a consolidated basis; and
`(B) to ensure that--
`(i) each regulated entity operates in a safe and sound manner, including maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls;"
GovTrack: S. 190 [109th]: Text of Legislation, Introduced in Senate

That is about the only thing I understood. Need someone with a brain to explain the rest to me.

If you introduce but cannot get something you think is important out of the Majority committee thingy, I want to see people jumping up and down screaming and waving their arms over their head in panic. But, I will give McCain a pass on the raising of the arms part.

tryreading

Its a question of leadership, like on the bail out bill today. Nobody cares enough to make things happen, it seems. There was other legislation passed around the time Hagel's was introduced, right? And it shouldn't be that hard to get at least a few Democratic votes if you want to regulate something, right? Isn't that the theory, Democrats want government to control everything? So, why did nothing happen? Why did Hagel's legislation go no farther than it did?

DivineComedy

The criminals in Congress simply are refusing to pass a solution to the real problem. Bailout is not a solution, and trying to claim it is not a bailout is doublespeak.

*****

What would it take for good business that does not need to be bailed out?

{I am sure it could be worded better:}

No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes.

DivineComedy

Any other solutions other than voting for Obama?

DivineComedy

“Under the so-called IndyMac plan, struggling home borrowers pay interest rates of about 3 percent for five years. Rates are reduced so that borrowers aren't paying more than 38 percent of their pretax income on housing. Bernanke suggested this threshold could be lowered to perhaps 31 percent of income, with the government sharing some of the cost.”The Associated Press: Bernanke: more action needed to cut foreclosures

Does the pond scum have a plan for preventing usurers, who think a National Treasure Sweepstakes hidden in the attic is funny, from fornicating with his borrowers behind his back and thereby increasing the overall debt to income ratio above 38%?