Posted on 04/26/2010 3:37:45 PM PDT by Pontiac
U.S. Senate Republicans stood together Monday to successfully block lawmakers from moving ahead with sweeping legislation to overhaul U.S. financial markets, a temporary stumble for the Obama administration's top domestic policy priority.
The Senate voted 57-41 on a procedural measure allowing lawmakers to move toward debate on financial regulatory overhaul legislation, falling short of the 60 votes needed. All GOP senators present voted against invoking cloture, joined by at least one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.).
The partisan vote underscores the high political stakes surrounding the legislation, which would subject the nation's financial institutions to new consumer and capital rules, boost regulation of derivatives and allow the government to respond more aggressively to crises in the financial system. If enacted, it would represent the most sweeping changes to regulation of financial markets since the Great Depression.
Both parties looked to secure gains from the vote. Republicans hoped to use their refusal to break ranks to strengthen their position in ongoing negotiations between the parties. Democrats, meanwhile, were happy to let GOP lawmakers take a vote that is likely to be used in re-election battles later this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“All the gop needs to say is that this codifies too big to fail and bailouts.”
Exactly. Get the video clip of the 30-something Wall St. banker saying “We need the money; give it to us now!” (Yes, it’s out there, I saw it the day before the first bailout vote). Tie that like a piece of meat around the democrats’ neck.
bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
The only reason the worthless pile of tripe Reid voted “NO”, I believe, is because Senate rules allow for a Senator who voted “no” on a bill or procedure to eventually call for a SECOND vote—so this was a tactic that may allow the weasel to get another vote to happen quickly.
It doesn’t “overhaul U.S. financial markets” from what I’ve heard. It kills them.
Rove was on Fox saying it authorized systems to track every single financial transaction. Every bank account, credit card, check, deposit or withdrawal. All without a warrant.
So now the next qustion is how they overturn this vote so that the rats can cram another unwanted bill down our throats?
Thanks for the great link.
What I find interesting is the brainless idiots at YouTube who comment (I try not to waste my time reading them, but...like watching a car wreck, you can’t help yourself)
“It’s all a lie!” and “It is Republican propaganda!” they exclaim. But how can you argue with those figures, which are a matter of public record? It is staggering, the hypocrisy.
I do believe Ann Coulter had it right when she stated that liberals almost make a joyful sport of seeing how big they can make their lies before anyone calls them on it.
If the Left didn’t control the media, their Big Lie approach to almost everything wouldn’t work. As it is, it is their number 1 PR method.
And the bribing begins! I wonder how the Democrats are going to bribe each other for votes this time around?
Yeah it’s good news.
Just a thought though is that this Obama nutcase is practicing to out Socialize FDR isn’t he.
Yep.My first reaction was that Nelson had seen what's going to happen to him in 2012 and is now just pandering to the other side.
In my humble opinion... Ried is 2 votes short of a functioning brain...
Thank you GOP!
I believe it was reported that Bond and Bennett weren’t there, but I’m not positive.
I think that’s exactly what happens.
Sheets isn’t going to be around much longer, me thinks, and I pray that WV FINALLY votes pub. Maybe the people of WV can connect the dots between mining, cap ‘n tax, and no jobs.
1. He knew this vote was just a "test" and was not going to pass, so he avail himself of a better negotiating position.
2. He may be looking to be "bought" by helping his richest constituent Warren Buffett to get an exemption from derivatives rules, because it was excluded from the "test vote" bill:
Democrats Reject Warren Buffett's Bid for Derivatives Exemption - CNBC /WSJ, 2010 April 26, by Alex Crippen
The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) late this morning that Democrats have agreed to "kill a provision from their derivatives bill pushed by Berkshire Hathaway that would have allowed the company to avoid a significant financial hit." CNBC's John Harwood has confirmed that development with his sources, although John notes the finreg debate still has a ways to go in the Senate, and then in House-Senate negotiations. The government wants to require companies to set aside collateral to cover potential losses from derivatives contracts. A front page piece (free content) in the printed edition of the Journal earlier this morning said Berkshire and Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson have been pushing to "largely exempt existing derivatives contracts" from the collateral rules. The Journal says Berkshire's argument is "it shouldn't be made to redo existing contracts and that it is already healthy enough to cover its obligations." ..... And in his "Ask Warren" appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box in March of 2009, after criticism and concerns over Berkshire's derivatives, Buffett had this to say: "We've used derivatives for many, many years. I don't think derivatives are evil, per se, I think they are dangerous. I've always said they're dangerous. I said they were financial weapons of mass destruction. But uranium is dangerous, and I just went through a nuclear electric plant about two weeks ago. Cars are dangerous. But I mean, every American wants to have one. You know, the -- a lot of things can be dangerous, but generally we regulate how they're used. I mean, there was a -- there was some guard up there with a machine gun on me, you know, when I was at the nuclear plant the other day. So we use lots of things daily that are dangerous, but we generally pay some attention to how they're used. We tell the cars how fast they can go." ..... Democrats in the Senate aren't buying what Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is selling.
I am not a fan of Warren Buffett's politics, but if he can help scuttle this power grab "reform" from seeing the light of day, more power to him and Ben Nelson.
A couple of Repubs didn’t vote at all...something I found out later. (Their votes weren’t needed.) Maybe they weren’t even present to vote...I don’t know. The info I was going on, anyhow, is that all Republicans were against the bill in it’s current form being debated. Which, by inescapable inference, includes the two who didn’t vote at all. So, to turn it around this way, not a single Republican was FOR starting debate on the current bill.
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.