Posted on 12/11/2009 11:46:02 AM PST by MaestroLC
The House has passed a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations that would govern Wall Street and reconfigure the power of the agencies overseeing the nation's banking system. The vote was 223-202.
The legislation is a priority of President Barack Obama's. It is designed to address the shortfalls that led to last year's calamitous financial meltdown.
New powers would give the federal government the right to break up big risky companies. It also would create a consumer agency to police lenders.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It’s exactly the flip side of the coin for what happened under Bush. Too big to fail = too big to exist. If your company is so gigantic that the entire US Economy would crash if your company failed, I would *far* rather have government intervene now than wait until after you failed to intervene. Less of *my money* is spent that way.
Acorn is to be on of the five governing bodies
- to distribute our money
My critters are Spectre, Sleezestak, and Casey. After multiple attempts, None of them give a damn about anything I have to say.
The Clown Car is completely out of control.
Any business that is to big to fail, is to big to exist. No company should be allowed to become so big that the government is forced to bail it out with taxpayer dollars or risk a global financial meltdown.
I see no problem with this. I only wish the Republicans had been the ones pushing it.
The courts have had limited abilities to sanction certain activity to encourage competition.
This is looking to hand direct political meddling from Congress. You really don't understand the difference?
Nationalize my cats, you pish ant, frog farting leftists!
Behold the relentless march of Fascism. The real kind.
time to circle the wagons
“The government has been braking up trusts and monopolies for over 100 years.
Any business that is to big to fail, is to big to exist. No company should be allowed to become so big that the government is forced to bail it out with taxpayer dollars or risk a global financial meltdown.
I see no problem with this. I only wish the Republicans had been the ones pushing it.”
100% agreed. The tragedy is that the Republicans did not push for this earlier and now the moderate middle will gravitate to the Dem’s populist message that this affords them. I think some people in this thread need to study up on what Teddy Roosevelt faced and did and then apply that to the present. If Hoover would have acted a bit more conscientiously and sober minded, we wouldn’t have had the entire New Deal shoved down our throats after FDR harnessed the populist rage.
Bump. A communist coup. Time to antee in, folks.
bump
Somewhere in the fine print there must be a clause that defines Congress as a "big, risky company" [of idiots] that can be disbanded if it prevents the Executive Authority from ruling as it pleases. Welcome to 1647!
Teddy Roosevelt is no example of Conservatism, he was as liberal as you can get. His “trust busters” were just socialists out to destroy business. He led the way to confiscate private land for parks and wildife refuges - the Envirowackos see him as a hero.
you don't have your wagons circled YET????
If big and risky are the criteria then the dem machine should certainly be broken up.
.
Yes, fascism, where it is fusion between corporation and state.
They're going to stop lending to financially-unqualified minorities that were given loans due to Bawney Fwank's and Chris Dodd's insistence on "equal opportunity to own homes"????
ROFL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.