Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (29940)	4/28/2010 10:02:34 PM
From: Wayners	Respond to of 103300

All it takes is 40% idiots and gerrymandering of districts and the whole country bows down and is forced to worship the 40%.

To: longnshort who wrote (29940)	4/29/2010 5:53:22 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 103300

Financial regulatory debate begins in Senate By William Branigin, Shailagh Murray, Brady Dennis Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2010; 2:41 PM washingtonpost.com The Senate opened debate Thursday on a bill to overhaul the nation's financial regulatory system after Republicans agreed to drop a three-day filibuster in the face of strong public support for reining in risky investment practices on Wall Street. "We have no choice" but to pass the landmark bill aimed at curbing the excesses that brought the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse, Senate banking committee chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a floor speech at the start of the debate. "The status quo is unacceptable. We cannot leave the American people vulnerable to the present construct of our financial regulatory system." He said the bill would end the notion of "too big to fail" -- the idea that major financial institutions must be bailed out by taxpayers because their collapse would also bring down the U.S. economy. He spoke after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to specifically prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to liquidate financial companies in receivership. "No longer will it be the implicit understanding that if a major financial institution starts to fail, it will get propped up by taxpayer dollars," Dodd said. The top Republican on the banking committee, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), said the two parties share roughly the same goals but differ on how to achieve them. He said the GOP's aim is to "reshape this bill so that it actually ends bailouts" and protects consumers without endangering community banks, economic growth or job creation. "We will seek to remove dozens of provisions that unnecessarily expand the reach of the federal government . . . and potentially endanger civil liberties," Shelby said. He asserted that, as written, the bill would "help the big banks get bigger" and would "ensure future bailouts" while establishing new "overarching bureaucracies." He called the overhaul a federal "power grab that can reach into virtually any aspect of our economy, and it needs to be restrained." Senate Republicans agreed Wednesday to stop blocking debate on the bill, and the Senate Democratic leadership agreed in return to allow votes on numerous GOP amendments. All 41 Republican senators and one Democrat had voted three times this week to block debate -- a stand that Democratic leaders portrayed as defending powerful special interests, notably major Wall Street banks and investment firms. The adverse publicity prompted Republicans to change tactics and attempt to reshape the bill through amendments. But Shelby denied Thursday that the shift meant Republicans were "blindly following the advice of pollsters." Democrats expect the debate to last through the second week of May. Speaking at a rally Wednesday in Quincy, Ill., an economically depressed Mississippi River town, President Obama hailed the bill's advancement and assured an exuberant audience of 2,300 people that the financial sector would face tough new restrictions. "What was working for them was not working for ordinary Americans," he said. Despite the agreement to begin debate, final passage of the massive bill was by no means guaranteed. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) supported the Republican filibuster on all three votes, and if Democrats do not address his concerns, they must win at least two GOP converts to push the legislation across the finish line. Nelson said he supports broad financial reforms to end bailouts, curb Wall Street abuses and protect consumers. But he objects to proposed new regulations on derivatives contracts that he said go too far and could harm business investment. In a statement Wednesday, Nelson noted that Omaha-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. was among the companies opposing the provision. But he denied that he voted as he did "because of Berkshire Hathaway" or because he and his wife have owned stock in the company for more than 30 years. "I voted no because of concerns about what is in the underlying bill" and because he had not seen a bipartisan alternative, Nelson said. "I have heard from Nebraska business owners and leaders that the underlying bill will extend too far and adversely impact Main Street businesses that use third party financing to help customers pay for their products or services." One likely target of Democratic efforts to find a filibuster-proof 60 votes will be Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who has identified only a few areas of concerns and has said she strongly supports the bill's overall objective of curbing Wall Street abuses. But she also has said she would vote against the bill unless she is convinced it will do no harm to small businesses and the community banks that lend to them. Shelby and Dodd agreed that they had made headway on the key issue of prohibiting taxpayer bailouts for failing financial firms. In particular, Dodd agreed to drop a proposed $50 billion fund paid for by the financial industry that could be used to shut down failing firms, among other assurances. Republicans had argued against the measure, saying that amounted to a permanent bailout fund. Dodd also agreed to ensure that Congress would have a say in any federal guarantee program and that such programs could be used only in real emergencies and only by solvent firms, aides said. Still, the two never reached reach agreement on the creation of a consumer financial protection bureau, a powerful entity that would monitor mortgages, credit cards and other consumer loans. Shelby also expressed reservations about the sweeping new rules to govern the derivatives market in the Dodd bill. He said that although he supports reining in the "casino-like atmosphere on Wall Street," he worried that the derivatives provisions in the bill would "have far-reaching and devastating effects" on Main Street businesses. Dodd's bill would impose tough restrictions on the derivatives trade, including provisions that would force big banks to spin off their derivatives desks and requiring that nearly all deals be traded on open exchanges and approved by entities called clearinghouses. It was barely a month ago that members of the Senate Banking Committee passed Dodd's bill on a quick party-line vote. GOP lawmakers had crafted hundreds of amendments for the committee to consider but decided to forgo proposing any of them, in hopes of negotiating a deal behind closed doors before the bill hit the Senate floor. Despite assurances from Democrats that they will consider GOP amendments to the bill, Republican lawmakers and their aides remained fearful Wednesday that Democrats will try to shut them out of the process. Without a deal in hand, Republicans also will have to fend off amendments from liberals that threaten to further shape the bill in ways they might oppose. Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report from Quincy, Ill.