I know we are all riding pretty high after HCR passed, but it is going to be awesome watching the Dems blow this:
Almost seven out of 10 people surveyed support using current bank regulators for consumer protection, backing positions held by the financial industry and Republicans over President Barack Obama’s proposal to establish an independent agency.
The poll’s findings come as the White House and congressional Democrats pivot to focus more election-year attention on an unpopular political target — banks and Wall Street — following this week’s victory on health-care legislation.
“Let’s not paint all of Wall Street with the same brush, but there are those who really did tremendous harm to our economy,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. “So now we will have a bill because we can’t ever let this happen again to the American people.”
As the country struggles with a 9.7 percent unemployment rate while financial stocks surge, 57 percent of Americans have a mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable view of Wall Street, versus fewer than one-quarter who have a favorable opinion. Banks are viewed badly by 54 percent of poll respondents, and 60 percent have a negative opinion of insurance companies.
The public hates the banksters- Democrats don’t need to move to the right on regulation to attract Republican votes. They need to loudly and daily hammer the Republicans as “in bed with the banksters” until they move to join the Democrats.
Please, Democrats. Just give it a try.
mr. whipple
How well did those regulators work out the first time?
some guy
I believe the uncropped version of that picture reveals that it’s Joe Biden carrying that sign.
Zifnab
Honestly, I wouldn’t mind seeing a tough-as-nails bill get floated through the Senate. Something that really goes after CEO pay and banks that profit off foreclosures and other forms of predatory lending. Something you know the Republicans will vote against en mass.
Put it up for a full vote and get every Republican on record crying about how this is unfair to capitalism and rich people and how it’s class warfare and only the debtors are to blame. Then campaign on the bill you can’t pass, because Republicans filibustered it.
I’d enjoy the hell out of that. Would make a great campaign commercial too.
scav
smile.
NR
Well, speaking of HCR, the insurance companies’ search for loopholes has already begun.
There will be lots more loopholes after this one that the insurance companies will abuse. Which is why we needed a public option. But, too late for that now.
In a few years, this bill is going to look just like the invasion of Iraq, with those of us who were right saying “I told you so,” and the people who supported it saying “Well, no one could have predicted….”
ellaesther
One reason I believe they will be able to blow it is what I heard on NPR yesterday about the different percentages of unemployed: white collar unemployment has doubled, sure — to 4% and a bit.
Working class unemployment on the other hand is in the vicinity of 14 and 15%.
Which is to say that the folks who donate and lobby and advocate and call their Congresschritters aren’t hurting nearly as badly as the rest of the country.
And the rest of the country is working too hard to try to pay rent and buy shoes for the kids to figure out how to do what the school system never bothered to teach them to do.
So the pressure just won’t be there, I fear, no matter what the polls say.
ds
@mr. whipple:
They worked amazingly well during the 50 years between the New Deal and Reagan where there were zero financial crises, when historically they happened every decade or so.
In the 80s and 90s, the regulations were gutted, and a whole new, completely unregulated “shadow banking” sector sprung up.
Unless we fix it there will be another financial crisis in the near future.
Steve
I have no clue how to interpret the fact that 70% of people prefer current bank regulators to a new independent agencies. Do even 1% of people have any idea about the actual pluses and minuses of each approach?
Napoleon
One thing is the Dems have to ignore this in the poll. The vast majority of people have no idea who regulates what so I would take this result to mean people want them regulated, not the particulars of who does it. The Republicans will be against whatever regulations the Dems propose so they should propose the tough ones they want and dare the Republicans to vote against it. If they are smart it could give them a 2-3 seat vote swing in the Senate and 10-15 seat swing in the House. It is as close to a no lose situation you ever see in life.
El Tiburon
Blow it John? Come on.
Don’t you get it by now. The Dems do it for the Drama.
How boring would this site have been over the past few months if HCR would have passed easily a long time ago?
Look how strong and energized the Dems appear right now. They were down and out and now they are Rocky Balboa.
America loves an underdog.
(but yes, it will prolly be blown)
Short Bus Bully
John, your plan has common sense and smart politics behind it.
No fucking way the Dems will ever go for it.
eric
@NR: No, what people here are saying is the as the loopholes get exploited, they get fixed and the system gets better. Soon the water is close to boiling and the frog has yet to notice — Medicare for all.
We are neither naive nor stupid. Take your misplaced self-assurance and fuck off. My progressiveness is pragmatic.
Ideology is spiritual imperialism.
eric
Punchy
Looks like that protester really preferred the mid 80’s, David Lee Roth version of Van Halen in lieu of what they are now.
ellaesther
(At least our angry crowds know how to correct the typos on their hand-scrawled signs…!)
Gregory
Yes, please.
Chyron HR
@NR:
Oh, it’ll only kill a hundred thousand people, eh? Thanks for not taking the low road by comparing it to the Holocaust.
Adam Collyer
And if by Democrats, you mean Senators…
cleek
@NR:
and the reality of the situation will not have changed one fucking bit: there were never enough votes for the public option. there were barely enough votes for what we did get. don’t like it? go back in time and elect more lefty Senators.
mr. whipple
Agreed we need to re-regulate the hell out of the industry, but also make sure there’s a funding mechanism in place so that the regulations can’t be effectively gutted by slashing the number of regulators in subsequent congresses.
Stefan
Almost seven out of 10 people surveyed support using current bank regulators for consumer protection,
What sort of useless poll is this? I’d say that 95% of the general public has literally no idea of the merits of this issue, so their opinion is effectively useless. All they really want is what works. This is like polling people about particle physics…..
Llelldorin
@NR:
There’s a rather profound difference–not invading Iraq maintained the status quo of not invading Iraq, which was an overwhelmingly better option. Not passing HCR meant maintaining the status quo in health care, where there were no rules to find loopholes in–and a host of seriously ill people were simply uninsured and uninsurable. Do you really want to argue HCR vs. the health system as it existed last week?
maye
@NR: actually the insurance companies have an incentive to behave (somewhat) over the next few years if they want to get into the exchanges.
me
@NR: If you’d pull your head out of your ass you’d realize, unlike the war, loopholes in HCR can be fixed.
Violet
Tim F. – are we doing another “call your Congressperson” campaign on this? Wasn’t Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show a few weeks ago or so – maybe a month or two ago – asking people to speak up about financial reform? Like…call your Congressperson.
I’m all fired up and ready for another phone campaign. Let’s get this done the right way.
stuckinred
@Chyron HR: Must be too crowded over at FDL.
Loneoak
That is a really weird poll, and I’m not sure we can actually make any meaning out of it. The Bloomberg article has very little detail, I’ve never heard of those pollsters, and their website doesn’t have the numbers. I’d put good money on proposition that the question was phrased in a way that really skewed the answers. Something like: “Do you support creating a huge new bureaucracy in D.C. that will control credit cards and mortgages?” If you phrased it “Do you support giving consumer protection regulatory powers to the same Federal Reserve officials that gave away your money in the bank bailouts?” you would get a very different answer.
Stefan
I have no clue how to interpret the fact that 70% of people prefer current bank regulators to a new independent agencies. Do even 1% of people have any idea about the actual pluses and minuses of each approach?
In a word, no. They’re answering out of pure ignorance.
ed
Yeah, well, it was pretty dadgum obvious that the Democrats should have passed a better Health Care Reform bill with a wildly popular Public Option that they campaigned on and said they had more than 50 votes for and the Republicans hated and could have been clubbed for that, but it mysteriously never happened. So don’t count on much of a Wall Street Bill either. And of you thought that HCR was shamefully watered down (and it was, bitches) and if you think Wall Street Reform will succumb to the power of Those Who Have The Gold(man), just wait ’til you see how much ass a Climate Change Bill will suck. Sorry, that’s just how it is. This is the best, the farthest left, we’ll ever see in our lifetimes. Embrace the suck and the faux victories, bitches. Still preferable to President Palin, by a longshot, but still…
scav
imagine that, large companies looking for loopholes! The sun is rising! The Sun Is RISING! Da Fireball dun ROZE!!! rruuuuunnnnnn!
because, of course, this is a single easily available and obvious and ungetroundable solution to greedy bastards that we’ve just somehow seemingly missed all these millennia.
Brian J
I never thought starting over was a good option for health care, but perhaps it might be for financial reform. Perhaps he could do a half-hour town hall or something explaining, in very basic form, why we need leverage requirements and a CFPA and so on. He can frame it as “We’re not trying to run them out of business, we are trying to protect consumers and taxpayers.” And hell, invite the Republicans. Let them explain to the American people why they are against what the administration is doing.
eric
@cleek: dude, don’t fuck around…go back in time and re-write that Constitution thingy with its separation of powers crap. Maybe craft proportional represenation for the Senate too. And no black presidents….
djork
Actually, in a few years that loophole will have closed:
eemom
@NR:
You forgot “veal pen.”
Just like Iraq War! Corporatists! No public option! Veal pen! Sqwaaaaawk!
Now fly back over to Mistress Jane’s and practice until you get it right.
wrb
@Zifnab:
exactly
Adam Collyer
@ed:
Snore. Move on. This week, we’ve won something.
Nothing like a sore winner…
eric
@ed: here is the difference: Insurance companies have money; financial players (including hedge funds) have MONEY. I would not be shocked if they voted to disallow the mention of Glass-Steagal in the history books.
eric
Napoleon
@Brian J:
It would also be a good place for liberals to make a last stand on an issue. Quite simply unless the bill is strong they should say so and vote against it.
ThatPirateGuy
I just called my Rep. Steve Cohen and asked him to tackle financial reform. I think if we start calling now we can beat the teabaggers to the punch.
Camchuck
Only problem is that many Dems are in bed with the banksters as well. Who do you think is going to sign Dodd’s checks when he ‘retires’ from the Senate?
twiffer
@eric: honestly, they are all intertwined these days.
Seanly
But what about the
childrenVillage pundits? Won’t someone think of thechildrenVillage pundits?I look forward to the gymnastics for the tea party to be for the little man CEOs and their mom-n-pop financial institutions.
We’re doomed & fucked, so let’s just sit back and enjoy the ride. I still have some credit cards with room – think I’m gonna buy me a 3D TV, Blu Ray player and a handgun. Handgun for when the tea baggers get outta hand & come after Democrats. 3D TV and such for enjoying the last 5 years of civilization.
JGabriel
@some guy:
Nah, not Joe.
I kind of like the contrast between the two VP’s publicized uses of the word “fuck”.
For Cheney, it’s a curse, used to attack Leahy in the well of the Senate floor: “Go FUCK youself!”
For Biden, it’s a celebratory indiscretion, on the passage of health care reform, a win for Obama, Democrats, and America: “This is a big FUCKING deal!”
See? We’re the people who celebrate with fucking; they’re the guys who attack with it.
Since the sign is an (admittedly deserved) attack, I’d like to think it’s not Joe.
.
Brian J
@Napoleon:
Any particular reason you think this is different than health care in that regard? I imagine your answer will be about time. Mine would be the same, but I can’t say why.
Stroszek
Cenk Uygar wins the First Annual Post-HCR Firebagger Award for a DailyKos diary comparing health care reform to the needless obliteration of Iraq.
Congrats, Cenk. It must have taken some serious Aspberger’s to make such a tone deaf analogy.
PTirebiter
Yesterday, I heard Michael Lewis, the the guy who wrote “The Big Short” saying he wouldn’t be surprised if the bill actually gets tougher in the process.
@ NR Care to give us your “told you so” now that we realize there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore? Jane/Nader 2012
Felonious Wench
@ed:
Oh, I am. Been enjoying it for days. Ready to take on another one…because yes, I am a proud, uppity bitch. And I’ll take on more and more and more because I understand you fight for the pieces you can get, bit by bit, until you win.
If you’re going to sit there and whine and give up, this bitch says STFU and embrace your identity as a coward who took untenable positions with no hope of passing because it’s easier to be sanctimonious.
scav
Seriously, the whining in stereo about peoplez not getting everything 100% the way peoplez want immediately is getting a bit repetitive. Can’t wait for the full-on Dolby (c) version we’ll no doubt be gifted with as time drags its weary burden onward. Got my magic 7.2 ball here and it’s telling me I’m going to be disappointed with any finance reform that passes and that I’ll go for it nonetheless because what we can probably pass now in this climate might be better than anything we can pass later. This is a damned marathon and I don’t quite really believe in the magical perfect ponies at the end. I still enjoy the impromptu ticker tape jogs and dancing at nice little milestones. To go all silly and dramatic, while I may not in my lifetime see the view from that exact mountaintop, the view is better here than it was before.
stuckinred
@scav: try a 7.62 ball.
freelancer
OT – Chuck “…pull the plug on Grandma” Grassley is taking credit for HCR.
I guess it’s progress that he’s not advocating repeal, Iowa independence from the Union, or introducing legislation to rescind Article 1 of the Constitution, so…you know, there’s that.
Violet
Repeating what I said upthread – let’s do what we did with health care and phone our Congresspeople on financial reform. Any ideas on where to start with that would be appreciated. I fully admit I’m out of my depth.
I do remember Elizabeth Warren on The Daily Show talking about it and I think I remember her saying we should urge our Representatives to do something about it. Link to HuffPo article with video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/elizabeth-warren-the-chip_n_438379.html.
I’m all fired up after healthcare and happy to help. What can we do?
J. Michael Neal
@Brian J: I’ll take a shot.
1) Financial reform actually can be broken into pieces, unlike health care reform. As a matter of legislative tactics, you can adopt the piecemeal approach.
2) The financial crisis is an acute event, unlike the health care crisis, which is chronic. To pass major legislation, the public needs to feel a crisis. In other words, it’s much less likely that we’ll be able to keep improving regulation going forward, like we will with health care.
3) An intermediate stage is much less useful for financial regulation than it is for health care. Limits on leverage are either effective or they’re not. While financial reform can be broken into smaller pieces, each piece has to be much closer to the ideal than health care reform did.
For all of these reasons, this is a much better place to draw hard and fast lines. Of course, I’m probably going to disagree with a lot of folks around here as to where those lines ought to be drawn, but it’s worth fighting for every inch more.
GregB
How soon before we are told that the Democrats were the ones obstructing the GOP from passing this wonderful health care reform bill?
I mean they have already re-written the Civil Rights Act history by claiming it was the GOP that were responsible for that.
Turdblossom is filling up a yellow note-pad with talking points as we read.
scav
@stuckinred: oh damn, not another security patch!
JGabriel
NR:
Jesus, get over yourself. No one is saying this bill is perfect. Nearly half the country describes it as “a good first step”. The vast majority of commenters on this board were disappointed that a public option didn’t make it into the bill, and would have liked single-payer even better.
We couldn’t get that through on a first try, and nearly a hundred years of failure shows we were never going to.
This bill will help tens of millions get insurance, via subsidies, they otherwise couldn’t afford. It will end the practice of recission and denying health insurance over pre-existing conditions.
No, it’s not perfect, and in a lot of ways it’s disappointing, and in some ways it sucks. But it sucks much less, 30 million uninsured less, than what preceded it.
And after 30 years of “Government is the problem” rhetoric from the Fox Party, it will show people that government can, in fact, be the solution to free market excesses. Now that these reforms are in place, we can move forward when the people say, “Hey, this is good, but can’t we make it better?”
.
J. Michael Neal
@Felonious Wench:
*swoon*
Are you single?
Omnes Omnibus
I would love to see strong financial reform legislation. I think it is another mix of good politics and good policy.
LanceThruster
Do we know that the Dems are not themselves in the bed with the banksters?
If they are they need to climb out, because since corporations now having “personhood” status, most of Congress is participating in illicit relationships.
stuckinred
@scav: @scav: Sort of. 7.62 Ball
Robin G
C’mon, really? I mean… it seems to me that the animosity, like, actual “I hate you personally” animosity, is about as high between legislators right now as I’ve ever seen. The Dems know how popular financial reform is, and they know they’ve got to get the public on their side if they want to keep their seats this fall. There’s no doubt that we’re going to get another half-loaf with the actual legislation, but I think that we’re going to see the House, at least, telling the GOP to stick it where the sun don’t shine — we did HCR without you, and we’ll do this, too.
I could be wrong. Probably am, actually. But I think that if there was ever a time that the Dems were unlikely to suck up to the GOP in the name of bipartisanship, this is it.
mr. whipple
No matter what happens with this bill, I make this fearless prediction: those on the left will say it’s an ineffective shit sandwich, and those the on the right that will claim that it will be the end of capitalism.
ed
@eric, 36:
That would be the Bobbi Flekman Principle I noted. Look it up, man.
@Felonious Wench, 46:
Who’s not fighting? Who’s given up? Not I. But I am Reality Based.
PTirebiter
@GregB: Grassley’s already claiming he wrote the good stuff in it. No one buys that crap but their base, and they ain’t exactly swing voters.
priscianus jr
Democrats don’t need to move to the right on this to attract voters. Unfortunately, they do need to move to the left on it for the regulation to actually work. And in this case, if it doesn’t work, we are all screwed. I shouldn’t even say “to the left,” because that implies it’s political, and really it’s simply a technical matter of preventing the total collapse of the world economy. Which is capitalist, by the way.
The poll also indicates that the majority think regulation can be done through existing regulatory institutions. That happens to be the solution favored by Wall Street and the banks. The people I trust on this are saying a new agency is necessary.
stuckinred
Violet
Is Elizabeth Warren still right that this legislation is bottled up in the Senate? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/elizabeth-warren-the-chip_n_438379.html.
Or has something else happened and that’s no longer the case? I don’t know enough about this, but remember this appearance on TDS. Anyone else know?
gwangung
@ed: Ethnic Americans since the passage of the Civil Rights Act snicker at your reality.
ed
@Mr. Whipple, 60:
Yeah, but left and right…of what?
As Taibbi put it, correctly:
So this is where we’re at. I’ll keep fighting to make things better, but let’s not create any false realities in the meantime. Thanks in advance.
ed
@guanggung, 66:
I don’t follow you. Are you suggesting that I’m opposed to the Civil Rights Act? Or would have been? Are you suggesting that I didn’t hold my nose for this HCR POS? I’ll keep fighting. Please join me.
scav
@stuckinred: not a chance in the fucking galaxy. I’m sticking with my security patch.
EDIT: And I’m now really pissed.
cleek
@mr. whipple:
nothing could be more true.
eric
@ed: He is right and he is wrong. Yes, the Dems are a center party (not even that center-left on a national scale), but, as just one example, the current Dem party takes no stands against the civil rights of gays and lesbians, even though they may slow dance their way to committing to full legal rights. I don’t think you could say the same for the Nixonian GOP.
I shan’t bring up race.
But on matters of finance and faith in the markets, it is more right than wrong. Not to mention lukewarm support of orhanized labor.
Napoleon
@Brian J:
I have thought about this a lot and I think it is more complicated then that and basically breaks down to two reasons.
First in HCR even crappy reform which IMO is what we got is a whole lot better then what we have and I think it would have been unconscionable to shoot it down. I don’t think that applies in financial reform (“FR”). A half ass FR bill simply will not do much more then no bill at all.
Second I think that there are a lot of Dems for which the HC issue is a passion so even with half ass HCR I really would expect them to keep hammering on changes in the coming years. So once you get the structure passed they have something to hang changes on. That passion does not exist for FR so once something passes everyone will check the box on the to do list until the next financial panic. If a half ass bill comes up and liberals kill it that box does not get checked.
By the way I think the FR issue is the total opposite of HCR for liberals when it comes to the application of Nate Silvers opinion he posted a few days ago comparing liberals and HCR with a poker player. In the case of FR people will buy a bluff by the liberals.
Adam Collyer
@ed:
Ohhh there’s nothing I hate more than someone self-righteously taking the mantle of the “reality-based community.”
I belong to a Penn State football message board as well. Keep in mind, for the past two years, my team has finished 11-2 and ranked in the top 10. We’d beat teams repeatedly by double digits, then hear about how it was “meaningless” because we should’ve beaten them by 30 instead of 15. At one point during the year, our all star senior passed for 300+ yards and completed 65% of his throws, and I was treated to the notion that he had a bad game because “his throwing motion didn’t look right.” When questioned, the commenter just responded, “Look, I love this team and want to see it do well as much as anyone. I’m just reality-based.”
Well, how’s this for reality based? In such a heated political climate, in a diverse nation, passing a substantive health care reform bill against a well-monied and loudly obstructive status quo is the equivalent of beating the #1 team in the country in their stadium. And instead of celebrating, rushing the field and carrying the players away on their back, we have some people who continue to complain that we didn’t win by enough. Or even better, that this is going to be seen as a boondoggle because it raised expectations too high.
Napoleon
Jesus, I am stuck in moderation @ 72.
liberty60
@freelancer:
mr. whipple
@ed:
I’ve never felt that the Democratic party has been as progressive as I’d like. I’d also say that if there’s a hazy nostalgia for once it once being really great andf is no longer, that’s BS, too.
gwangung
@ed: Perhaps better said as, “Welcome to our world.”
Folks have been banging their heads on the wall for over 40 years. Y’all don’t need to teach your grandma how to suck eggs….
Tsulagi
Which means it’s a full go. Time: Now. No need to wait until the fall; see 14 state R-AGs filing suit in federal court.
Brian J
@Napoleon:
I think the first suggestion you make is the most valid. Even if we had done nothing but give people more subsidies, that would have been a step forward. But if we truly half ass financial reform, it means that we are essentially shutting our eyes to the problems that could appear.
patroclus
Violet, the Senate Banking Committee marked up and passed a financial reform bill yesterday. Today, both Chairmen – Dodd and Frank – met with Obama and Geithner and Summers et. al. about the process going forward. On CSPAN3, they just gave a presser describing what the House and Senate bills contain. The goal for passage is May 31 (which means late August/September).
This is THE issue now that HCR is done. They both reiterated that “we’re going to get a Bill.” You are right that NOW is the time for to educate the public and for any public pressure to be relevant. Hopefully, the blogs will pivot in that direction soon…
liberty60
Speaking of the wingnuts at American Spectator and the dilemma bank reform puts them in, enjoy this passage from the current issue:
Notice the horror of the bolded part- getting things done for the poor and middle class!
Please Democrats-just give it a try.
Dee Loralei
@ThatPirateGuy: Hey, I’m in Cordova! That most odious Marsha Blackburn is my rep. I love Cohen and am going to volunteer for his primary campaign.
JGabriel
ed:
Gwangung is reminding you that Civil Rights wasn’t passed in one go, but over three separate bills between 1961 and 1965.
.
Scott P.
Does it matter at all that the Democratic Party during the Nixon/Ford years didn’t accomplish one damn thing?
Linda Featheringill
To JGabriel:
Excellent demonstration of the difference. And, by the way, viva la difference!
gwangung
@JGabriel: As well as the fact that even with the passage of the final Civil Rights Act, we didn’t end racism, we didn’t end discrimination and we sure as hell aren’t treating non-whites anywhere near as well as they should be.
It’s been bitter, slow progress every step of the way, and for decades, it felt all that was being done was lip service for blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and even Asian Americans.
And that’s with an even bigger, stronger consensus than I think we have here with health care. So, less bitterness and snark, and more rolling up the sleeves, please.
The Raven
Guy, the public hates the health insurance companies, too. The financial services industry owns the
House of Lords, er, Senate.Croak!
liberal
But the problem is that the Democrats are also in bed with the banksters. Perhaps not as much as the Republicans, and certainly not in exactly the same ways, but definitely in bed with them.
As for campaign rhetoric, yes, it could be used to clobber the Republicans. But the Dems get lots of contributions from FIRE, so I wouldn’t count on it.
liberal
@LanceThruster:
All the evidence points extremely strong in the other direction.
jonas
That argument would be a lot more effective if the Democrats weren’t, well, “in bed with the banksters” just as much if not more than the Republicans.
liberal
@J. Michael Neal:
Yes and no. In terms of stuff happening that could easily freak out the public, it was acute. In terms of the health of the financial system, and the fact that many major players are almost certainly still insolvent, the taxpayer/citizenry is still funding both direct and indirect bailouts, etc, it’s definitely chronic.
The Raven
To everyone who cares about this issue, I highly recommend The Baseline Scenario, edited by Simon Johnson and James Kwak. Also, look at their blogroll.
liberal
@The Raven:
I agree, though I think Yves Smith’s nakedcapitalism.com is also good, as is her book. The other blog which is interesting is Barry Ritholz’s “Big Picture”.
liberal
@The Raven:
I’m sure they also own the House.
Barney Frank is a prime example. Since the crisis has started he’s bleated on and on about helping the poor, poor homeowners who are underwater, but bailing out underwater homeowners is really just handing money to the banks.
ed
@Scott P, 84:
So we should adopt the policies of Nixon/Ford? Huh?
More Taibbi:
So I am I getting anything wrong here? This is a Winston Wolf Situation. As in, let’s not start…um…you know. There’s plenty more to be done, and more pushing in the better direction.
Dave Paulson
What are you all worried about? Chris Dodd has this baby under control. He’ll have effective reform passed and in place before he begins his retirement as a lobbyist.
I just hope Obama can put enough pressure on Congress to get some teeth back into the reform. I mean come on Dodd, put the watchdog agency inside the Fed? It’s like putting the hen inside the fox house . . .
We just need more Ted Kaufmans in the Senate!
The Raven
@liberal: I thought about suggesting Naked Capitalism, but figured it was already linked from Baseline. I like Ritholtz now that I’ve taken a look at his blog.
I’d say that the bankers have influence in the House, but this is counterbalanced by the short House terms—the House, by its nature, is at least moderately populist. But the bankers own perhaps 3/4s of the Senate. There are some liberals in the Senate, but they are limited by Senate rules and customs.
Boney Baloney
@ed: Oh, has Taibbi’s butthole stopped hurting? Last time I heard, he responded to criticism by throwing coffee in someone’s face.
If her majesty has stopped leaving a snail trail, that’s great. A guy who arranged a faceful of horse-semen pie against a journalistic adversary, under cover of a public accolade, should pride himself on not being a giant asshole. Ah, well, many are called, and few are chosen.