Obama blasts banks for opposing financial overhaul

[NJmaverick]

– President Barack Obama singled out financial institutions for causing much of the economic tailspin and criticized their opposition to tighter federal oversight of their industry.
While applauding House passage Friday of overhaul legislation and urging quick Senate action, Obama expressed frustration with banks that were helped by a taxpayer bailout and now are "fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists" against new government controls.
In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama said the economy is only now beginning to recover from the "irresponsibility" of Wall Street institutions that "gambled on risky loans and complex financial products" in pursuit of short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences.
"It was, as some have put it, risk management without the management," he said.
The president also told CBS' "60 Minutes" that "the people on Wall Street still don't get it. ... They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year ... in decades and you guys caused the problem," Obama said in an excerpt released in advance of Sunday night's broadcast of his interview

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_financial_overhaul;_ylt=AtBP..7b4gjZex8eWbd8Rn.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTN2dXBoanRsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjEyL3VzX29iYW1hX2ZpbmFuY2lhbF9vdmVyaGF1bARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNvYmFtYWJsYXN0c2I-


It's good to see a President who is fighting for the people.

[atreides1]

1. It's about time

He's been playing nice for far too long with those blood sucking evil f**ks!

[MannyGoldstein]

2. so when is Obama restoring Glass-Steagall?

Hello?

[NJmaverick]

3. You are framing your issue like there isn't alternatives to Glass-Steagall

or that the White House hasn't other issues to work on.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. It worked perfectly well for 70 years

When it was repealed, we had catastrophe in just a few tears. Seems pretty straightforward.

[NJmaverick]

5. Times change, the type writer worked well for a long time to, but there are times to move on

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Typewriter=Good, Word Processor = Better

A better analogy would be: a patient has metastatic cancer. She can have a therapy that's been used for 70 years with a incredibly good record of success. Or, she can try something with no track record that a doctor thinks is a cool idea.

[AllentownJake]

8. I think that is a silly comparison

The reason for Glass Steagall has not changed. The reason Glass Steagall was enacted to begin with was to remove conflicts of interest in the banking sector. If this new regulation creates a way to remove the conflict of brokerage, investment banking, retail banking, insurance etc please explain to me how.

Using the computer analogy suggest there is a better tool for the same purpose. Please explain in detail why the new regs are better tool.

[NJmaverick]

10. I would think it silly to believe the world hasn't changed a great deal in the last 70 years

[AllentownJake]

12. If you think the conflict of interest has changed please explain yourself

Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant.

[mkultra]

22. new regs should address the VOLUME of CDO and MSB sales

as well as the rating system for tranches. This is the root of our meltdown and glass steagall did not directly address these problems.

[AllentownJake]

26. Transparency would do a lot to help

that problem, forcing derivatives onto an open market where buyer and sellers can be traced would help people.

Goldman would have a hard time explaining to a client why they were buying derivatives on MBS to default and selling the same MBS to their client.

I also think like any other insurance, mandating an insurable interest would go a long way and requiring reserves on contracts like any other insurance product.

The risk that was taken from 2001-2007 wouldn't have been taken if people didn't think they had insurance.

Insurance companies don't blow that often from their life, property, and health businesses. There is a reason for that.

[mkultra]

29. insurable interest?

thats what AIG did was insure the income payable by these tranches. Everyone did have insurance, the problem wasnt really AIG. the problem was fannie/freddie and bernanke. AIG and the CDO/MSB interconnected nature was just the next set of dominoes. AIG didn't pay out because they where hit to hard. The reason they "blew it" is because we had a housing metldown.

[AllentownJake]

32. AIG did not have reserves for the products they were selling

They were selling insurance without reserving for it. If AIG had been required to reserve for the CDOs on MBS there would have been a blow-up but it would have been a blip compared to what happened.

Research what AIG did, and their lobbying efforts to prevent it from becoming declared an insurance product and thus subject to state insurance regulations, which they would not have wanted in either NY where the products are sold or PA where they are domiciled.

[mkultra]

34. no company has reserves at that level jake

They had reserves, the housing meltdown was MASSIVE. nothing could have protected us once it began. The only way out is to stop it from happening again. THAT is what we need to regulate.

[AllentownJake]

35. The amount of insurance would have never been written

thus no bubble to begin with. The CDOs were the justification to banks auditors and government on the risk they were taking.

[mkultra]

36. maybe. I prefer to deal with the problem directly

it seems like limiting insurance would be an indirect limitation. These kinds of things always have unexpected consequences.

[AllentownJake]

39. I prefer to close as many back doors as possible

and let them spend another 50 years trying to open them again.

[babylonsister]

6. Not his job, but it's not forgotten either...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7173944

A Move to Revive Glass-Steagall

[polichick]

16. No kidding. When he calls for that, I'll know he's serious. nt

[mkultra]

30. Fuck glass steagal

We need better more modern regulation. Glass steagal would have stopped this.

[AllentownJake]

9. 2010 blast Wall Street

Loudly and often. You win.

Keep quiet and appear to be their pawns, you lose.

[NJmaverick]

11. Wow, talk about not giving a person a fair break

Obama could end all wars and you would post complaining about all the soldiers and defense contractors he put out of business.:eyes:

[AllentownJake]

13. You are really hyperventilating on this thread

You should probably research a topic before posting news stories on it.

These regs do not replace Glass Steagall and are not enacted for the same reason that New Deal reform was enacted. Glass Steagall regulated the type of business activity a firm could engage in and prevented firms from engaging in multiple business activities because it lead to a conflict of interest.

These reforms relate to regulating business practices and how to unwind a large firm that has failed.

You should have said that comparing these reforms is apples to orange and that a later bill might come about to look at those activities.

My argument is in 2010 the banks should be Obama's whipping boy..politically speaking.

BabylonSister knew the topic and went in the right direction.

[NJmaverick]

14. Calling out your obvious anti-Obama agenda is not "hyperventilating"

it's known as calling it like I see it.

[AllentownJake]

15. See now you are engaging in the debate tactics you claim to detest

You are attacking me, not the issue I bring up, nowhere did I bring up the President. You did. Last time I checked, this was a congressional bill.

If the President wishes to support a new Glass Steagall I will be 100% behind him. He has spoken the 1999 legislation repealing the bill was a mistake in the past. If he thinks it was a mistake, he should consider doing something to undo the mistake.

So on the issue of the typewriter, the President has said himself, we should have never stopped using it. You are the one disagreeing with the President. Not me.

[NJmaverick]

18. You keep wanting to distract from the main issue. YOU wouldn't give Obama the credit he deserved

President Obama does something good and you dismiss it as campaign bullshit. I think that's horrible for you to do so, especially as you had nothing to back up your claims. Like I said if Obama were to cure world hunger all you would talk about is how he ignored mail pattern baldness.

[AllentownJake]

19. Where did I do that?

I said if the President attacks wall street banks for 2010, an institution people aren't fond of he will win seats in congress in the 2010 elections if he does not, we will probably lose seats. I posted yesterday the President should become a populist again and if he doesn't, the GOP will on some other issue.

I find it funny that someone who posted an OP about reasonable debate tactics on issues is now engaging in personal attacks. I decided to approach you mostly using your own rules to see how you would react and you are acting quite childish.

What is your beef with what I've said to you in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7202089&mesg_id=7202089

[NJmaverick]

20. Maybe I read your post the wrong way. Your explanation is reasonable

However your first post was vague and I don't think it was an unreasonable interpretation that you were making a claim that President Obama was cynically manipulating the system for political gain. I will accept your clarification on the matter.

[AllentownJake]

21. You should probably ask questions instead of going on the attack first

based on previous exchanges and adhere to your own rules of debate you previously published.

[NJmaverick]

24. that's not a bad idea

[mkultra]

23. actually, its clear you werent talking about the president

you where talking about US, the citizenry. That's the part that made you look like you where distracting from the topic.

[AllentownJake]

25. If anything you could say I was talking about the Democratic Party

The 2010 part implies an election.

[mkultra]

27. so which claim is the truth and which is the lie?

That you where suggesting we blast them or that Obama blast them? Or is it really that we should blast him?

[AllentownJake]

28. You are really fishing

For no good reason I might add, you can't say that I said anything offensive, even to the most delicate of Obama cheerleaders in this thread. Till I just said cheerleader

[mkultra]

31. look jake, you normally contain your contempt

pretty well, and maybe you just typed it in wrong. It just looked like more bullshit democratic disruption. My apologies if im mistaken.

[AllentownJake]

33. I'm cheerleading the party to attack bankers in 2010

I have a race against Pat Toomey one of the original derivative traders from the 80s locally to worry about.

I would appreciate a little help from the White House calling bankers scum bags...from a purely local perspective.

[mkultra]

37. you wont see that right now because they are trying to restart the economy

they want the banks to work with them until things get rolling, then they will probably start to pick them off one at a time.

[AllentownJake]

38. They aren't going to work with him

President Obama needs to read a little history of the last guy who tried to work with them in a severe economic crisis.

These people aren't loyal to their own families, let alone their country.

[mkultra]

41. if they unite against him, it can be a problem

he's handling it right. Its been less than a year and all i really want him to focus on is the economy. We need to get job growth back on track before we start pissing on peoples heads.

[AllentownJake]

42. They already have

What do you think that TARP repayment thing was. They removed capital from their balance sheets voluntarily and will do less lending thus stimulating less growth.

The jacking up of credit card interest rates on good customers was the first salvo.

If I were him, I'd devote any FBI personnel not involved in preventing terrorist attacks to investigating a few of them. Send a few to jail for life, see if they become more amicable.

[AllentownJake]

17. BTW

The President in that interview repeats the same thing I said about TARP repayments by the Too Big to Fail for months. It is not about financial stability and more about them paying their bonuses.

I hope the President has ended his experiment in engaging in civil discussions with sociopaths and will take an escalation approach on this issue.

He likes to see if a rational solution can be worked out to benefit all parties and tends to err on believing the best of people, it is a noble trait in some cases. Hopefully he has learned his lessons with the Wall Street gang and is ready to evicerate them.

[andym]

40. He wants them to take their medicine, now that the US has bailed them out

As if the bankers might have learned some kind of lesson.

Biggest problem was that this legislation was that it was not closer to being finished in March, when the bankers could put up less resistance.

Still even then, the bankers managed to kill credit card caps, so an airtight regulation bill would have been difficult.

[treestar]

43. I thought the Pres was a corporatist who favored the banks?

:rofl: I have been spending too much time on DU.

[IndianaGreen]

44. It is only faux outrage and empty words

A real reformer would have nationalized the banks, as they are doing in Venezuela.

[NJmaverick]

47. IndianaGreen you would be complaining about soldiers being out of work, if Obama created world peace

[AllentownJake]

49. You are doing it again

No more debate behavior post from you...mmmmk.

[NJmaverick]

51. Sorry now you are the one guilty of doing it. IG's message is quite clear

it is not vague, like your thread. In the end I agreed with you because you claimed I misread your statement's intentions. In this case, that isn't going on. I think it's time YOU practice the intellectual honest that I do.

[AllentownJake]

52. Respond to the assertion that nationalizing the banks would have been good/bad

Stronger than a personal insult.

[NJmaverick]

54. That's better ATJ. In this case IG has made the intellectually dishonest statement

that ONLY if person nationalizes the banks could they be considered a reformer. Sorry but that statement would require that it is a given that the ONLY solution to the economic crisis and the only way to prevent it from happening again would be nationalization. That my friend, is simply wrong and a point he never effectively established. From that failed position he went on to fake outrage and empty words. Again this is a dishonest accusation as he can't back it up with fact or reason. That is the very standard of intellectually honesty that you (if you honestly believe in the concept and are not simply playing games)should be holding IG to.

[AllentownJake]

56. There you go

You made the OP, I respected the OP, and I'm going to be a pain in the ass on you about it.

[NJmaverick]

58. Now as you are familiar with the rules of intellectual honesty, you know you need to apply it evenly

so can we expect to see you holding others, such as IG, to the same standards?

[AllentownJake]

59. Nope

I've debated both on TV and was a high school championship debater. I've broken every rule to get my point a cross and win an argument.

However, you wish to use the rules therefore you have to live by their standards, however you should use them yourself when debating others if it feels like it will strengthen your credibility or argument. Otherwise you should abandon them and not selectively use them.

[NJmaverick]

60. Sounds to me that you are playing and game and you don't care about intellectual honest

well you are going to have to find a new playmate, I am not going to waste my time on games.

[AllentownJake]

62. You are the one who posted rules you can't follow yourself

I did no such things, child.

If you are going to post rules of what you think is acceptable behavior, make sure you can follow them yourself, and that is the hardcore liberal in my coming out.

[NJmaverick]

63. Before I call you out, please explain the your use of the term "child"

as for the rest of your comments, you just confirmed my position that you are playing games and don't believe it's important to be intellectually honest.

[AllentownJake]

64. You are acting like a child

Creating rules for debate than violating the very rules you created. I don't even have to say anything controversial to provoke you into violating said rules, you reach for personal insults very quickly. Therefore the child reference.

I live and work in the real world, I've debated the enemy in the real world, not some sort of academic setting, I'd be more than happy to email you a link to my televised debate against two local tea baggers.

You will see that I did not really stick to the standards 100% of what you posted.

So if you want to call me out for intellectual dishonesty, you can try, I'm calling you out for both hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

You should be viewing this as an opportunity to become a debater, the angry people on here aren't your enemies. In two years they will shut their mouth see a nazi and do the right thing, than they will go back to their normal complaining about policy and organizing to move the party in their direction.

I would never advise a local political candidate to adopt those rules, he'd get slaughtered in an election campaign and a debate.

[NJmaverick]

65. OK, we are through here. You ae the ones playing games (that could be characterized as childish)

yet you want to try and insult me and call me a child, I am not wasting anymore time with you.


You know the funny thing is you lost as many debate points as you won. Yet you are supposedly this champion debater. It's kind of funny that someone like myself, who never debated in a formal setting (but only tries to adhere to the principals of intellectual honest), could hold my own against you.

[AllentownJake]

66. I don't think I've lost one point to you yet

and up to referring to you as a child,

I used your rules.

[NJmaverick]

68. I was sure you wouldn't admit to losing a point, as you don't believe in the intellectual honesty

that would require you to do so.

[AllentownJake]

69. I believe it

However, based on your insulting replies to everyone who has responded to you, you say you do, and don't.

As far a debates go, the President which who you admire, would fail your standards in all of his debates both primary and general election, as would all his opponents.

You should use those rules as a filter for truth, not as one for getting across a point you believe in. Those rules are meant to take emotion out of a debate. It is never not present in a debate, as evidenced by how you yourself reply.

[IndianaGreen]

50. What specific steps is Obama taking, or has taken, to make the banks behave responsibly?

How many people with troubled mortgages have been helped?

[NJmaverick]

55. Woah slow down, you need to support your previous statements

you accused President Obama of "faux outrage" and "empty words". Where is your proof to back this up?


You claim that "nationalization" is the ONLY answer to the economic problems. You never established this unique position as factual or correct. Time to start doing things the right way IG.

[treestar]

53. This is not Venezuela!

Nationalizing the banks is just not politically possible here.

What an expectation!

[IndianaGreen]

61. Capitalism is killing us all! You can't reform it. You can't make it benign.

All the things that liberals and other progressives say they want, can never be achieved within a system based on greed and exploitation. The endless pandering to Wall Street, the timid response to the economic crisis of the American workers, coupled with a permanent state of war are evidence that we must topple a political system whose overriding mission is to serve the banker, financiers, and oligarchs.

Venezuelan Bank Fraud Case: Three Executives Flee, Government Intervenes in Related Companies

Published on December 9th 2009, by Tamara Pearson – Venezuelanalysis.com

Mérida, December 9th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Following the government’s nationalisation of two banks and liquidation of two others for banking law infractions, three bank executives fled to the U.S., and the government intervened in food companies owned by currently detained bank owner, Ricardo Fernandez.

Interior Relations Minister Tareck El Aissami announced on Tuesday that two Venezuelans implicated in the bank scandals flew to Atlanta, and one to Miami, and that a fourth person was captured while trying to board a plane to Miami.

The Public Prosecutor had already issued ten arrest warrants for banking executives and 19 prohibitions on leaving the country for involvement in organised crime and for banking law infractions. This followed the nationalisation of two banks, Confederado and Bolivar Bank, and the liquidation of two others, Banpro and Canarias, last week.

On Monday, the Institute in Defence of People’s Access to Goods and Services (Indepabis), along with the national guard, intervened in and inspected four food companies: Pronutricos, Proarepa, Fextun, and Venarroz. The companies are owned by Ricardo Fernandez, who also owns the four banks, and who was detained two weeks ago.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4993

[phleshdef]

70. Capitalism is part of what America is. It should not be unbridled, but calling for us to kill it..

...altogether is not our way. Get over it.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Capitalism is not part of America. Our Founding Fathers were not capitalists

They would have been buried by today's capitalists, and they would have horrified by finding out that a corporation has more legal rights than a person.

Capitalists have no loyalty to country, or have any cares about people. Profit is their only motive. Their greatest accomplishment of capitalism was to convince the workers that create the wealth of capital, to vote against their own class interests.

Socialism is as American as apple pie. It was socialists that fought and died to bring about the 8-hour work day.

[phleshdef]

75. Don't try to pull the "founding fathers" card on me. You don't want to go there.

Because if you try, we get to talk about slavery and we get to talk about racism and we get to talk about religious zealotry.

Capitalism, in and of itself is not evil. Unbridled, unregulated capitalism is another story. Allowing people to freely run businesses for a profit is very American and most Americans agree.

[IndianaGreen]

77. You are confusing capitalism, basically a monopoly system, with 'free enterprise'

You don't even understand what you are defending.

[phleshdef]

79. Capitalism is not a "monopoly system". You're the one that has no clue what these words mean.

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.

My source? The mother fucking dictionary.

And I said in the previous post that unbridled, unregulated capitalism is a bad thing. That means monopolies. Go get some basic education on the meaning of these words before you continue to run your mouth.

[phleshdef]

71. Obama is a liberal, not a socialist.

[IndianaGreen]

73. FDR wasn't a socialist either, but he infused a lot of socialism into the New Deal

to help the people that he cared about.

Obama is not a liberal. Liberals don't support rendition or war escalations, or land mines, or deny LGBTs their rights by arguing in favour of DOMA in the courts.

Democratic Party has moved so far to the right, that what we once referred to as conservative Democratic positions are now considered left wing.

[phleshdef]

76. You don't GET to define what a liberal is. It all ready has a definition. Look it up.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Is it liberal to support PATRIOT, warrantless searches, rendition, wars of aggression, etc?

You might find more agreement as to what liberalism is not. BTW, neoliberalism is not liberalism.

[phleshdef]

80. I'm for none of those things. But you could be for all of them and still be a liberal by definition.

We are talking semantics here. I know thats probably difficult for you.

[phleshdef]

81. Let me take back the warrantless searches part. That would be out of line with liberalism.

[Lilyeye]

45. Funny how every positive Obama thread basically calls him a liar.

:shakes head and gets out of thread:

[impik]

46. Amen. It's like a disease.

But hey, Matt-whats'-his-name said that he was a sell out.

[Cha]

82. Matt Taibbi makes Errors.

Which is a really nice way if pointing out that he's a liar.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x51550

[AllentownJake]

48. There are two post calling the President a liar

Out of a lot of discussion.

[NJmaverick]

57. Consider neither post offered any proof and this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground

that is 2 too many.

[AllentownJake]

74. Both advocated stronger responses not weaker ones

Therefore, I don't see how you can insinuate that the posters were somehow right wingers. One poster you can call a socialist, the other was advocating things that FDR did in a similar situation.

[NJmaverick]

84. You are deliberately ignoring the main point which is that it is wrong to accuse the man of lying

with out proof.

[IndianaGreen]

85. He just lied on Oprah tonight

Obama just said (about 10:26 pm) that health reform was going to cover all Americans, and we know that is not true. As many as 29 million Americans will remain without health coverage under the proposed bills.

[NJmaverick]

86. That is FALSE!

here is what he said

"And number four, it provides 30 million people who don't have health insurance health insurance by setting up an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to pool their purchasing power and get a better deal, and provide subsidies for people who just can't afford it. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/13/60minutes/main5975426_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

nice use of the time to try and gain some credibility to your fictional tale

[Cha]

67. I got a message from some Org when I got home

on Friday afternoon that wanted me to call my Blue Dog and they would pay for it. They thought he was "being influenced by the banks" and would vote no.

Turns out my blue dog came through but 27 dems didn't.

[Cha]

83. The banks opposed it and so did "27 dems".

ProSense (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-11-09 08:51 PM
Original message

"The 27 House Democrats who voted against financial reform"
Roll call

Berry
Boren
Boucher
Bright
Chandler
Cuellar
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Griffith
Halvorson
Hill
Kaptur
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kucinich
Massa
McIntyre
Mitchell
Ortiz
Perriello
Ross
Schrader
Skelton
Space
Stupak
Taylor
Teague
Visclosky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x52039

ProSense (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-11-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. Statements from the CBC and Maxine Waters
Chairwoman Barbara Lee Statement on The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(Washington, D.C.)- Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, released the following statement today on the passage of The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act:

“I applaud and welcome the passage of H.R. 4173, The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation will provide critical financial reforms and strong protections for consumers. It is vital that we have a stand alone agency whose sole mission is to protect the rights of consumers.

“For too long our financial regulatory framework put the protection and stability of financial institutions first and too often ignored the impact on American consumers and retail investors. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency will help ensure that Wall Street will not be able to bring our economy to the brink of disaster ever again.

“I thank Chairman Frank and members of the Financial Services Committee for working with Rep. Maxine Waters, chair the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus to include several important provisions in the bill.
“Specifically, thanks to their focused work, this bill will include $3 billion in funds to provide relief for unemployed homeowners. It will extend credit for the recently unemployed that will help save homes from foreclosure.

“This bill will stop the spread of foreclosure rescue scams and includes a vital $1 billion increase in Neighborhood Stabilization Funds to protect our hardest hit communities.

“Lower income communities and communities of color were targeted for these unaffordable and unethical products that are now driving millions of families into foreclosure.

“Access to financial services and insurance products for historically underserved communities is strengthened. The Office of Minority Inclusion, whose goal will be to make sure that all Americans have the equal protection of the work of the work of the entire federal financial regulatory framework is included in this bill.

“Fairness of access and opportunity, transparency and strong enforcement of securities regulations are vital to bringing our economy back from recession and ensuring that the uncontrolled risk taking on Wall Street will never again have such a devastating impact on the entire economy.”

Congressional Black Caucus Members of the House Financial Services Committee include Rep. Maxine Waters, CA, Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY, Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO, Rep. David Scott, GA, Rep. Al Green, TX, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO, Rep. Gwen Moore, WI, Rep. Keith Ellison, MN, and Rep. Andre Carson, IN.



"Congresswoman Waters Applauds Passage of Wall Street Reform Bill"
Legislation Includes Key Provisions She Authored to Help Homeowners

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x51932#52072

Why even Alan Grayson voted for the bill that included this by him and ron paul.

"The measure includes language, introduced in committee by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), that would authorize an expansive audit of the Federal Reserve, a landmark achievement for critics of the central bank's secretive operations.

The bill also requires systemically important banks to pay into a fund that would be used to break them up and sell them off if they go bankrupt. Republicans bitterly and inaccurately referred to it as a "bailout fund," telegraphing a critique that will undoubtedly re-emerge during the 2010 midterm elections."

<more>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-passes-financial-re_n_389267.html