[free_life]

the issue was portrayed as a change in financial law that would allow banks to conflate FDIC-insured bank accounts with derivative trading (again?). This sounds like a terrible idea, and if true (doubtful), then Elizabeth Warren is correct on this issue (she and Sarah Palin see eye-to-eye on Wall Street and crony capitalism in many ways)

That is how I understand it and I agree with Warren on this issue.

Thank you, maybe some here will actually read why she is against this instead of just parroting "she is the enemy, she must be wrong" crap.

Warren is wrong on lots of things but she right on this one and this is about to become law by the sellout congresscritters both Dem and Repub's who have betrayed us all.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I agree that to remove this provision means just one thing: instead of those banks that are engaging in derivatives gambling collapsing, the United States would have to destroy itself to protect them from collapse. THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES COULD FAIL AS LONG AS THESE BANKS SURVIVE is the idea.

This is what the removal of this provision means. Anyone who votes in favor of removing this provision is wholly owned, body and soul, by these banks.

Importantly, these banks are *still* gambling trillions of dollars in derivatives markets, with the same insane addiction as some widowed grandmother gambling away her retirement money on a one armed bandit in a casino.

Bang! There goes the rent money. Bang! There goes the money for medicine. Bang! There goes the money for food.

They don’t care, as long as they can continue gambling.

They must be stopped.