Last Thursday, a new bill passed the American Senate by a margin of 59-39, and more importantly 4 Republicans voted yes, but 2 voted no. I think this is great that there will now be a consumer agency regulator. That will help the system be more consumer friendly. This system also would change the procedure in which companies go down. So it is great that now we know for sure that the Obama Gov. has moved on from health care, and now going into reform, and I would hope the next thing they start talking about it is immigration. Because there this issue is sparking up since the new law in Arizona.
It would create a council of regulators that would sound an alarm
before companies are in position to trigger a financial crisis. The
bill would also establish new procedures for shutting down giant financial firms that are collapsing.
The bill, which passed 59-39, imposes more oversight and stronger
capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms, while
aiming to stop bailouts, shine a light on complex financial products
and strengthen consumer protection.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/20/news/economy/Wall_Street_reform/index.htm
No Volcker rule.
ReplyDeleteNo Tobin Tax.
No meaningful regulation (including outright restrictions) of CDOs and CDSs.
Reform? You have low standards friend.
Watching the Democrats lose big to the Republicans in November will be a very big treat for this liberal and dessert would be Ignatieff losing to Harper (minority of course) whenever the next election occurs.
At least Dion had heart, better policies and courage, too bad his English is so poor, our country full of idiots and our party full of gutless, out of touch lawyers.
P.S. Thanks for posting about something actually important, too many liblog bloggers have no idea what matters to Canadians if the content of their blogs is any indication.
Matt B
I'm sorry. So the implication of the first comment that the Republicans would have passed greater reforms?
ReplyDeleteFat chance! They fought these reforms tooth and nail.
I too would have liked to have seen the Volker rule or a complete return of the Glass-Steagal Act
But the reforms being discussed now remain the greatest reforms to the US financial system since the Great Depression.
So if your comment is any indication, you don't know what's important to Canadians either, especially if your idea of advancing progressive ideas is to re-elect Harper.
If you think Obama or Ignatieff are progressive than you're the one missing information or off your meds.
ReplyDeleteWeak reforms, are pointless, even if they're the "most significant" since the Great Depression, if they do nothing to curtail the power of a corrupt financial system or do nothing to avert the next crisis, which looks like it's already starting to bubble up.
Next thing you're gonna try to tell me is that Clinton, the guy responsible for gutting Glass-Steagal (may he and Rubin rot somewhere awful for that) was a progressive too, just because he had "Democrat" on his business cards.
Obama promoted Bernanke, Geithner and Summers, all failures of the Bush era and acolytes of mister "deregulation is good" Rubin.
Ignatieff has no idea why he wants to be PM or what he would do with it, so yeah I'd rather Harper win again than get Iggy playing Obama and "waste" a liberal government.
With Obama and Iggy as "progressive" leaders of their respective countries I now know how fiscal conservatives felt under GW Bush. Betrayed. Disappointed. Disgusted.