There should not be any bailout without simultaneous repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

[still_one]

along with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

and the bastards should also cap the maximum credit card interest rate that can be charged

otherwise Congress can go to hell as far as I am concerned

[Mind_your_head]

1. Do you have links for those and 'why you think so?'

:hi:

[still_one]

2. See links below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[magellan]

3. Bush** will veto that

...and hang the resulting economic meltdown (which is probably coming regardless) around the Dems' necks.

[still_one]

4. If they played that game, it would bring those issues right to the front page

It was the commodity futures act that called for NO REGULATION of credit default swaps

This will be layed right at their feet if they played that game.

[magellan]

5. It should

But you know the state of our media, and the power of the RW wurlitzer.

I'm beginning to wonder if this thing is being rushed through because BushCo KNOW the economy is about to melt down either way -- and they're hoping the Dems try something like this, with the unavoidable outcome of delaying passage of the legislation...which lets BushCo and the Repugs blame Dem "obstructionism".

I'm probably channeling my paranoia too much. It's far easier to explain this as BushCo hitting the panic button and giving the Dems the bum's rush yet again. "Here's a bit of legislation we prepared earlier for this eventuality....Don't bother reading it, just sign on the dotted line."

On the other hand, I've learned to never underestimate what the filthy amoral right are capable of doing.

[still_one]

6. Naomi Kline was of the belief, and I tend to agree with her, that bush/etc

actually want this to be as bad as possible so they can argue that Social Security and Medicare need to be privitized because we have no money because of the bailout

We really must be one step ahead of them on this

I have written my Senators and Congress Person on not just allowing for the 700 billion bailout without repealing legislation which got us to where we are

[magellan]

7. Yes, Shock Doctrine

We were wondering what more they could possibly do between now and January. Now we know.

It will be interesting to see the reaction if they try to privatize Social Security and Medicare. I believe even my 78 yr old conservative father will take to the streets if they try.

But again, I'm not sure they'll leave any choice. If it's bad enough, and if the Dems don't stop hopping around like marionettes on strings to Repug dictates just to save themselves, it could happen.

I wrote my congress critters about this too, saying they need to make it a condition to bring back Glass-Steagall or the equivalent if they do this, and also the recipients have to open their books as Biden suggests. But I'm afraid at this point I have little faith in the power of the people to sway them over their face-saving political concerns.

[still_one]

8. I live in California, but I sure hope the retirees in Florida are aware of what is happening /nt

[magellan]

12. I live in FL and wish I still lived in CA

This state is fuggin' stupid on the whole. But I think the current situation, and who's to blame, will not have escaped most retirees. It impacts them directly in so many ways. My stepmom and her friends harbor a healthy hatred of Bush** and Repubs, without my input....

Time for bed. G'nite!

[prayin4rain]

11. and the Telecommunications Act so that we can get real news again n/t

on edit: oops didn't mean to post to you :)

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. He might very well get overridden again.

He tried that on the Farm Bill last Spring which included closing the Enron Loophole. Congress overrode him. They know all about this background, they have been holding hearings all year - Levin even longer than that.

All 50 governors tried to take on the predatory lenders themselves and B* used some Civil War agency I forget the name of, to stop them!!! Can you imagine the nerve of that? It didn't become a big news story for some reason. Eliot Spitzer wrote an article outing him for it (in Salon I think), and the next day he was busted. (I wonder why?)

[prayin4rain]

9. why didn't he veto???? n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. Definitely yes!!!

Wholeheartedly agree!

And btw, until early in the 1970s ('72 I think), the LEGAL LIMIT on interest was 7%. No problems. It was called "usury" to charge more than that, and was ILLEGAL. Only criminal "knee breaker" types did that. There is zero reason for banks to pay 2% for money and for us to pay any more than 2% or so above that - fixed. That should be for anything, mortgages, student loans, cars, credit cards. Make the loan at that rate or not at all - as it used to be. This grossly sliding scale of gouging based on a history of ever being late on a payment for 20 minutes, is nothing but a giant "con". Their risk assessments are baloney or it would've told them the market was going to collapse and that most of the loans they made were dangerous. It did predict that though, did it? What use is it then?

And why should credit cards (and other creditors) be allowed to change the terms one-sidedly? What kind of contract is that? It's preposterous.