'Finance bill will help good Americans, not minorities or defective people...

[statman]

Tell us what you really think Congressman...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-help-good-am/

[Uncle Ted]

What is a 'defective' person? Can they be returned for a refund?

[Katy Lied]

Actually, seems to me he was taken out of context. I think he meant that the bill was not specifically aimed at redressing past injuries to minorities, or trying to help the physically and psychologically handicapped. That it would benefit regular people who never before have asked for help.

[dabrockster]

Does these two quotes scare the shit out of anyone else???

A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600-trillion derivatives market. In addition, a council of regulators, headed by the Treasury secretary, would monitor the financial landscape for potential systemic risks.

Sen. Dodd: "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500675_pf.html

[DU Ute]

How did I know this guy was a Democrat?

[Tim]

Does these two quotes scare the shit out of anyone else???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500675_pf.html

Some other scary parts:

Both the House and Senate must approve the compromise legislation before it can go to Obama for his signature.

What? Compromise? Somebody please tell me what that word means, because apparently my understanding is wrong. I thought it meant that people from all sides of the political spectrum work together to create a piece of legislation that they're all comfortable with, each giving up things that are less important to them in order to get the more important things they want. That doesn't sound scary at all, though, so I'm curious to know if my understanding of the definition of "compromise" is wrong.

"The finish line is in sight. The bill that has emerged from conference is strong," Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in a statement early Friday. "It will offer families the protections they deserve, help safeguard their financial security and give the businesses of America access to the credit they need to expand and innovate."

Dang! This is TERRIBLE for America and American businesses!

"One goal of these limits is to reduce participation in high-risk activity that can cause significant losses at institutions which are central to the financial system," Dodd said.

Sorry, Senator Dodd... we all enjoy life more when the foundations of our financial system are shaking and at risk. This stability crap is DANGEROUS!

[Tim]

Sen. Dodd: "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

Is the wording that you're concerned with the "how it works" part? There are two possible meanings: 1) "how it functions," and 2) "how it works out." If he meant number 1, then you're definitely right that it's iffy. I believe he meant number 2, though, which is to say "we don't yet know if it's going to work out..."

[YOhio]

How did I know this guy was a Democrat?

Ha! I cringed when I first saw the thread because I thought it was going to be a Republican.

[DU Ute]

Ha! I cringed when I first saw the thread because I thought it was going to be a Republican.

You must not have noticed who posted the link. You need to become a student of statman and dabrockster's posts.

[dabrockster]

Is the wording that you're concerned with the "how it works" part? There are two possible meanings: 1) "how it functions," and 2) "how it works out." If he meant number 1, then you're definitely right that it's iffy. I believe he meant number 2, though, which is to say "we don't yet know if it's going to work out..."

Yes. That is what concerns me either way. I am not sure if there is a difference between "How it works out" or "How it functions". To me those sound like the same thing. To me, what he just said is, "We are not sure if this legislation is in fact going to do what we want to accomplish", which I think could further cause economic concerns in our already shaky system..

And the creation of a new federal bureaucratic agency that seems to have substantial power is concerning to me. It is more money that will need to be spent for these jobs...

[Tim]

Yes. That is what concerns me either way. I am not sure if there is a difference between "How it works out" or "How it functions". To me those sound like the same thing. To me, what he just said is, "We are not sure if this legislation is in fact going to do what we want to accomplish", which I think could further cause economic concerns in our already shaky system..

And the creation of a new federal bureaucratic agency that seems to have substantial power is concerning to me. It is more money that will need to be spent for these jobs...

I think a better reading of what he said was "We're not sure how this organization will work out," meaning "We're not sure if it's going to be successful at doing what we want it to do." But that's certainly not a scary thing. It's a project to try and stabilize the system by removing the ability of banks to do the very thing that's made it shaky. I don't know why that would be a bad thing.

[Pheidippides]

I think a better reading of what he said was "We're not sure how this organization will work out," meaning "We're not sure if it's going to be successful at doing what we want it to do." But that's certainly not a scary thing. It's a project to try and stabilize the system by removing the ability of banks to do the very thing that's made it shaky. I don't know why that would be a bad thing.

Please answer these two questions:

1. What did banks do to make it shaky?

2. Is that really your answer?

[dabrockster]

I think a better reading of what he said was "We're not sure how this organization will work out," meaning "We're not sure if it's going to be successful at doing what we want it to do." But that's certainly not a scary thing. It's a project to try and stabilize the system by removing the ability of banks to do the very thing that's made it shaky. I don't know why that would be a bad thing.

Possibly.. The idea that he is not sure how it is going to work out is not my major concern (I should of added my own editorial to that quote separate from the first one). It is this new Agency, that can have the power to seize banks, major oversight of the market on a level that seems alarming and to much power and scares me...

[il Padrino Ute]

Tim, are you saying that you're okay with the government getting even bigger and making more decisions for you?