E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) now says he'll vote for the final Wall Street reform legislation -- after changes were made to the conference report. This pretty much guarantees the legislation will clear the Senate and will be signed into law by President Obama.
Brown's statement:
I've spent the past week reviewing the Wall Street reform bill. I appreciate the efforts to improve the bill, especially the removal of the $19 billion bank tax. As a result, it is a better bill than it was when this whole process started. While it isn't perfect, I expect to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. It includes safeguards to help prevent another financial meltdown, ensures that consumers are protected, and it is paid for without new taxes. That doesn't mean our work is done. Further reforms are still needed to address the government's role in the financial crisis, including significant changes to the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate."
Leave a Comment:
Well, Brownie is now the flavor of the month in liberal Massachusetts again. At least he thinks so. He really craves attention. He had both sides of the aisle lobbying him just for the attention. He knew all along he was going vote both ends against the middle. I guess he doesn't care about Mr Magoo, looking, Mitch McConnell's memo of just saying "NO". Oh wait a minute; he did slow it down! It's not great but it's a start.
Now, how will Brownie get the TEA baggers attention?
Brown got what he wanted, Bev...the removal of $19 million in taxes from the legislation.
Not bad for a rookie back-bencher with no seniority.
No wonder the people of Massachusetts rank him higher than Kerry or Frank...or any other Massachusetts politician, for that matter.
I'm glad that at least HE reviewed it. From what we've been reading about the bill, most of the Democrats in Congress have not read it, and they have no idea how it will work - much like the "health reform" bill that was supposed to lower the Deficit (thanks to huge tax increases), but the experts now say it will cost hundreds of $Billions (perhaps $Trillions) added to the Deficit. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Roy, so you think that most democrats haven't read the bill. How would you know that? Fox News? I guess it is all where you get your news...
Boris-1930261 #1.3,
You mean they read it, like the way they read the healthcare reform bill __— one hardcopy, not loaded up to the computer, and what 5-6 hours for all to read all of it from one hardcopy, before voting on it ?
If they only had 5-6 hours to figure out what was in the bill they must not have been paying attention for 14 months. Possible...but somehow I doubt that.
In truth very few Congressmen read bills themselves. They get it from their aids and staff in summary form.
I love it. The teabaggers were overjoyed they got Brown elected only to find out he's not one of them. Thank you Brownie. for doing what YOU think is right.
Looks like Brown wasn't quite the political upset the GOP establishement had predicted. Hey dditto-heads?
Reform will pass
Brown just refuses to be reduced to a "yes" man. He is working for the people in Massachusetts, that simple. He is doing his job, setting a good example for other Repubs to follow. Brown just might be a sleeper for the republicans in 8 years when Obama is done with his 2 terms. As long as he don't follow in the steps of the senior senators and refuses to play "dirty" politics he has a great future.
Brown is exactly the type of politician we need more of... someone willing to stand up to the party rulers and vote in the best interests of America. His statement says it all... the bill's not perfect and dosen't address every issue, but it does addresss a number of critical problems and on balance does a lot to stabilize our financial system. People like Brown make party affiliation less important, which is just what we need. Blind partisanship is killing this country. People like Scott Brown breathe new life into it.
brownie? hmmm me thinks you are.
No matter what new legislation our Federal government bestows on the financial markets or the stock market the corruption embedded over the past 100 years is there to stay. The common everyday hard working American has been fooled into putting his or her hard earned money into the stock market or any other investment for that matter. Any system that allows an upper hand to anyone is corrupt. I understand the concept of risk, but when legislation removes the risk from a certain group and compounds the risk for the rest of us it is corrupt and legislators should be subject to jail terms for introducing corrupt legislation as well as for voting for it. At any time he who has the larger percentage of shares of any given stock controls the value.
An unsophistocated investor buys stock for 30 years and believes he or she has say $2 million in funds available as needed for retirement. Then comes along the 51 percenter or a group making up a percentage of 51 or greater. Actually it doesn't even need to be that high a percentage. Anyway they get together and decide it is time for them to "take" their profits. One day as the market opens there is a massive sell off of a particular stock. The first 20 to 30 percent of sales take the profits. The stock value that has taken 20 years to get where it is suddenly crashes. The $2milion retirement fund is now $200,000. Why because our CORRUPT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS LOBBIEST TO MANIPULATE LEGISLATION THAT MAKES THIS TYPE OF UNARMED ROBBERY LEGAL. SCOTT BROWN IS NOT DIFFERENT THAN A KENNEDY, NO ACTUALLY HE IS WORSE BECAUSE HE PORTRAYS HIMSELF TO BE DIFFERENT. HE IS A FAKE AND ALWAYS WAS A FAKE!! The Truth be known the Dems probably have something on him that he doesn't want to get out so he goes along with them. The true sign of a man with shallow core beliefs and an empty value system.
For the record, I have had a 401K with a particular company I no longer work for that was started back in 1998. The fund invested in the stock market for over 11 years has less money in it now than I put in it from my paycheck including employer matching funds. Currently, I invest $1000 monthly in a 401K with my current employer. It is like taking $1000 a month and giving it away. In other words my 401K which grew to a certain value has stopped growing. At least for a while the amount of contributions grew the account. Now the monthly contributions are consumed by the market. I have had no growth for over a year and a half. It is almost like my account is being monitored and purposely held at its current value.
The United States Constitution needs amendments that removes from the elected officials this attitude of royalty and upper class they all seem to have. What makes Nancy Pelosi think she needs her own jet. Sure she is third in line or the Presidency, but she is not the President. Her position only takes on its importance if something happens to the President and the Vice President. She is ony the speaker of the house, nothing more. This attitude that she needs to be treated like royalty is unconstitutional and corrupt.
Scott Brown has quite the tightrope to walk. If he walks in lockstep with the Republicans too much he'll soon be duck soup in Massachusetts. If he works with the Democrats too much he'll lose the support of the Republicans.
In the end, you can see that Republicans will support big business and banks over the American people.
how about going after the real cause of the financial meltdown? This bill does not address the problem at all if it does not regulate socialist organizations like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I would think that the voters of MA were ready to stop the socialist movement that Obama is championing.
We did go after the real cause of the financial meltdown - we removed the Republicans from office.
Now the republicans are impeeding progress and recovery efforts for political gain. Republican leaders like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck have books to sell - so it benefits them personally when they get their republican counterparts in congress to mess everything up.
The republicans actually want the keys back to government now, LOL!!!
Mattwm your just like the republicans who you are supporting out of F&$%ing touch with reality!! So Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and The president are the Cause of this Financial Crisis Really?? Ummm Obama wasn't in office when the meltdown happened G - Dub and his goonies were as a matter of fact G-Dub and his goonies ran Countrywide too the real Culprit and then they Corrupted freddie and fannie....... Hey Mattwn here is a novel Idea for u Get a F*$#ing Clue!!!
mattwm,
The reasons the Democrap's don't want to highlight Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae is because if the American public see's that these two organizations were the major cause of the Financial meltdown, they won't be able to blame the GOP, much longer and since both are the Democraps welfare programs, their goose would be cooked!!!!!! Carter, Clinton, Frank, Dodd are the people responsible for the housing bust!!!!!!!! Everyone deserves a house even if they can't afford it...They told the banks if you don't lend the money to the low-income and minorities we will hold back what the Fed gives you!!!!!!!!
Snuffy Smith;
Snuffy lives in a shack, makes moonshine, is in constant trouble with the sheriff and is very shiftless, occasionally doing a small amount of farm work but primarily working his still and loafing. He also has some proclivity toward stealing chickens. He is very short, wears a broad-brimmed felt hat almost as tall as he is, has a scraggly mustache and wears a pair of tattered, poorly patched overalls. He constantly cheats at poker and checkers. His speech is ungrammatical in the extreme!
Republicans have succeeded again in water down a strong financial reform bill. This financial reform bill is useless because it is full of loopholes for the corporatists and Wall-Streeter’s to take advantage of....To bad there are so many feeble minded people calling this piece of garbage a great example of bipartisanship legislation when in fact the Democrats have been duped again by corporatists Conservative Republican Tea Party Congressmen and Congresswomen who goal is to weaken any legislation put forth by Democrats by creating as many loopholes as possible...The Conservative Repubican Tea Partiers will only blame Democrats for a double dip reccession when Wall Street and Corporations exploit the loopholes in the final financial reform bill at the detriment of the American Tax Payer.
Eric-913730 In talking about Brown, you said "In the end, you can see that Republicans will support big business and banks over the American people."
I'm trying to make sense of your comment, since banks and big business opposed the bill that Brown is now supporting.
Nice try at a "spin", but your logic escapes me.
The real problem with this bill might be that it doesn't undo what really got us into this mess in the first place: the ability of financial and banking firms to merge. If that safeguard hadn't been stripped, there wouldn't have been the like of Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and so on, and hence no need for the term "too big to fail".
Mike-1932583 #2.3,
Try looking back a bit further to see where efforts to prevent the environment for the financial meltdown from happening occurred, and those who thwarted it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
About the Republicans and Wall Street money:
Obama received $994,795 from Goldman Sachs to McCain's $230,095.
Obama received $701,290 from Citigroup to McCain's $322,051.
Obama received $695,132 from J.P. Morgan Chase to McCain's $228,426.
Wall Street in general supported Democrats to Republicans by a 4-1 margin. Nasty hedge fund guys? Almost exclusively Democrats.
Fannie and Freddie? Top 3 recipients were: 1) Dodd; 2) Obama; 3) Kerry. McCain? Heck, Emanuel even got twice the amount that McCain received from Fannie and Freddie.
Snuffy....You are so witty...Democraps. That is so funny. Be carefull not to fall through the hole in the outhouse because your laughing so hard.
Thank you Bob - the dilusion of the left is stunning. That their party has controlled congress now for nearly 4 years, oversaw the meltdown while mismanaging banking oversight, Wall St oversight, and mortgage (Fannie/Freddie) oversight is not arguable.
What is utter foolishness is to read the tripe coming out of the senators mouth "ensures that consumers are protected" - seriously. Consumers have had their hat handed to them along with being bent over by Democrats and Republicans. Our federal government is our enemy. They take more and more, do less and less, party at our expense, it's like watching the WWE.
Politics is just about as real today as "Professional Wrestling".
You're wrong Bob, things have just changed in that regard: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/27/wall-street-rules-help-gop-fill-campaign-coffers/
Roy, nice double spin on that. Brown voted against the bill until they dropped the 19 billion bank tax. Just proof that with it removed that Republicans support big business over the security of Americans.
Bob,
Each of those donations to BHO were given by individuals working within the Company well within their legal rights. It would be wholly different if those values were given by the Company's themselves trying to gain favor with a politician through campaign funding. That is why BHO did not accept funds from corporations. Can you not just accept that money provided from corporations to a political candidate is NOT the same as that given by employees of that entity? It would more accurately read, especially from a legal/tax standpoint, that GS, Citi and JPmorgan gave $0 to the President and gave the various amounts to McCain. Understand?
Paul F,
Yep. As Paine said, government at it's best is a necessary evil, at it's worst an intolerable one. Obama can receive 4 times as much as McCain, but McCain's 1/4th is just as intolerable to me.
There was a recent poll by Democrat/Clinton adviser James Carville's group that found 55% of Americans either strongly, or very strongly view Obama as a socialist.
Maybe people are starting to realize this less about Republican vs. Democrat, and more about Paine vs. Marx.
basedrum,
rock on! you'd think Bob would be PROUD of President Obama's ability to garner the financial support of individuals in RECORD numbers. Isn't that the capitalists' way? Let those with the ideas and the ability to get them financed rule?
Seems like McCain was just a sorry capitalist. And a poor candidate and not much of a fund raiser. Although that Home Shopping Network bit on Saturday Night Live was the stuff Classics are made of!
President Obama, thank you for being really good at fund raising and for beating the ticket of Dumb and Dumber. I sleep much easier without THAT threat to contend with, also to, for. You betcha'!
Basedrum,
I assumed everyone here understood PACs and how elections work. Thanks for clarifying in case there are any other bricks out there.
Eric,
My comments were factual, correct and recognize the reality of the last election cycle. You acknowledged that I was right by stating that it is changing.
But the good news/bad news for you is that you are right about Wall Street and Big Business changing.
The good news for you is that your characterizations of Republicans will actually in the near future be true.
The bad news for you is that these same supporters, like most of America, are realizing the damage Obama is doing to the economy (and America in general) are abandoning him.
Basedrum,
I see you found a brick while I was responding.
Thanks again for the help.
enough of your tea baggers calling dem socialists, you have no idea what is socialist is, go get book and study first before opening your hole.
Bob,
That just goes to show how bad McCain was as a candidate. That traditionally Republican donors abandoned him. His choice of Palin was another nail in his judgemental coffin. I think thats what really those numbers indicate.
Scott Brown is the example all Republicans should follow, he is truely a bipartisan. I guess right about now the Massachusetts Tea Party are setting their hair on fire. Suckers
Thank you Senator Brown for not being just another dope of nope
Yes you all love him if he votes the way you want him to. If he would have said NO; he would have been called another stupid azz Republican, Dope of Nope, Rethugligan, Uninformed, Stale male and pale, etc....Oh I forgot RACIST.
Poor right-wing lunatics. They are such victims.
Come on now ITM... You know better than that. We would not have called Brown any of those things because those are all our pet names for YOU!
IntheMiddle, TX
Yes you all love him if he votes the way you want him to. If he would have said NO; he would have been called another stupid azz Republican, Dope of Nope, Rethugligan, Uninformed, Stale male and pale, etc....Oh I forgot RACIST.
Its not about how WE want him to vote but about him knowing what best for his voters. lets remember he does have the senate seat held be teddy Kennedy, yes he is a republican but he also knows that in Massachusetts the independent voters don't want a yes man to the republican or democrats. Teddy kennedy was not a yes man.
Oha here you go again labling, republicans as racist. no one has ever labled scott Brown a racist.
if the republicans thought they had a guy that would just Vote NO because his fellow republicans told him to or because he want to keep the republicans happy with there NO adjenda well sorry. I like this guy, i hope he is the future example for republicans instead of Mike Steele or Mitch, Eric Cantor, just maybe some work can get done in washington.
Greg I love it! after all of the liberal pissing and moaning, now you want to claim him as your own.
Doing a far better job than Coakley would have done isnt he!
greg111 - don't be fooled by tea bagging Brown being bipartisan, all he's doing is trying to fool the voters in Blue Massachusetts so he can fool them into reelecting him in two years. If Pink Leather Shorts Brown were in a red state you could bet your bippy that he'd be voting no to appease the red state Braindead Beckerheads. A truly bipartisan vote would have about half the dopes of nope voting for it instead of a few in Blue States.
Eric: I don't think it's called appeasement when an elected official votes the way his/her constiuency wants them to. I think it's called honor and being accountable to the people who sent him/her to office in the first place.
Greg I love it! after all of the liberal pissing and moaning, now you want to claim him as your own.
Doing a far better job than Coakley would have done isnt he!
I am not claiming him as one of my own I am not happy that he got the bank tax dropped. The reason I am OK with him is that he will at least vote for the bill once they make the changes he would like. Instead of the rest of the Republicans who will aggree with most of a bill but vote against it to tow the party line of NO!
It's amazing how fickle Brown and several others that protested the $19 million "tax" are. They allow Dodd to just call it something else even though it is the same assessment and say all is good.
We used to have moderate Republicans who werre perhaps more liberal than Conservatove Dems.
Why is it that you would think the Tea Party would be upset over this. I applaud Brown for doing his job and taking the time to analyze what he was voting on instead of just doing what Pelosi or reid want him to do. Perhaps people like you should learn more about what the real Tea Party is about and not what the liberal media would like to portray. I think the people in Massachusetts made the right decision with brown and finally broke up the Kennedy professional poiltician dynasty. More of that needs to happen.
And with the vote goes any future hope of Brown ever being on any presidential ticket.
Oooh...I think you're wrong on that point. Brown's moderation may not fire up the Republican base, but it'll catch a lot of Independent interest. And as we all know, elections are won in the middle - not to the left or right.
What, you think some right-wing nutjob saying NO to everything is going to be useful on any presidential ticket? At least Brown is doing what's best for the country instead of just himself. It's refreshing to see that coming from a Republican.
wake up you liberals... all the lies Obama told in the last election has made independent votes go back to the conservative movement. you liberals keep attacking Republicans, but it's conservatives you need to be watching for. as we see with Brown, you can not judge a person by what party they align with, it's how they vote. Brown is showing his true liberals colors.
Ben-182373
Scott Brown has a better chance than Sarah palin, he is smart, does not fly off the handle when he is infront of a carmea, did not go to 5 colleges before finishing, he is a lawyer(i think), Didn't quit his Job to write books and tour to make millions, and is a real family man.
mattwm,
You betcha I'll be watching out for the conservatives! I hear they pack heat for when they don't get their way.
Presidential nominations happen in the primaries, and it is the conservatives or liberals who get the votes, not the moderates. Look what happens when moderates get nominated in recent years.
Ursula,
Was Harvard grad Amy Bishop a conservative??
“The Masquerading Democrat”
Harold Ford is still seeing stars after Rachel called him out and factually smacked him down.... Gregory felt so sorry for Ford that he gave him the last minute of time with no rebuttal before they moved on to the subject of Afghanistan.
Did Harold Ford arrogantly and naively believe, that Rachel of all people would allow him to get away with his Republican Political Bull@!$%#? Did he actually think that Rachel Maddow viewed him as a "Real Democrat", that she would not have the intellectual wit to not only figure him out but also call him out? I guess Harold Ford is so use to being impressed with his charm that he thought his Tennessean Southern Charisma would be influential in protecting his phony persona... but I don’t know if anyone has ever informed him of this or not but Mr. Ford, Rachel Maddow is just not in to you...
On Sunday’s Meet the Press Show, Rachel Maddow was undoubtedly ready to share her experience of what she learned from her visit in Afghanistan but she was also prepared to discuss any other subject that crossed her plate... All who have watched and all who have personally engaged her should have known this as well. Mr. Harold Ford clearly did not get the memo in enough time because he would soon become the latest victim of her Facts Attack.
I somehow knew this day would be Harold Ford’s day, David Brooks had that "I know better" look on his face, and Gillespie, although he still presented his talking points, he had enough commonsense to know that it didn’t matter how many Republicans they put around the table, it still wasn’t going to be enough to take on Rachel Maddow. Even if you threw in a Republican Camaflouge as a Democrat, the best you could do would be to throw out all the falsehoods you could and hope she didn’t have enough verbal speed to knock each and every one of them down.
Rachel had that Factual Attack look on her face as she often gets when a Guest appears on her show prepared to give their selective narrative on what they want the uninformed to believe but unprepared for her dismantling of their lies as she uses a weapon of their own words against them. ..
Well that look was present Sunday as she listened to Harold Ford speak on the subject of our economy; her look told the story of "oh so you want to go that route, uh Mr. Ford,"we should stop talking about the past" "shouldn’t be inflexible on the deficit "and oh "extends tax rates aka tax cuts for the rich because we don’t want to spook investors" so you say..... I’ve been waiting for you a long time Mr. Harold Ford... you’ve yet to come on my show but oh now I’ve got you right where I want you... you didn’t really think because I’ve been away in Afghanistan, that I would be either too tired to challenge contradiction and lies, therefore leaving me negligently unprepared did you? Or did you foolishly think that the scope of my participation on today’s show would be limited just to the War in Afghanistan?
Harold Ford confidence originally must have felt secure, and could one blame him, here he was sitting at the table with three other Republicans, (David Gregory, David Brooks and Ed Gillespie). A setting that one could say resembled the MSNBC’S Republican Early Morning Show of Morning Joe; with Mrs. Mika Brzezinski by his side, you would find Joe Scarborough leading the roundtable of Republicans such as Mike Barnicle, Mark Halperin, Morton Zuckerman, Pat Buchanan and Harold Ford himself.
The Morning Joe Nostalgia had to make Ford feel right at home; thinking this Republican Environmental Protection would be enough to take on Rachel Maddow; that this setting would give him "The Masquerading Democrat" enough cover to set-up and present a false analysis of our economy; and that he Harold Ford would have his Republican Panel waiting on the sidelines to assist him in small doses of agreements here and there, filtered in with prearranged opinions of disagreement, a ploy as to give that false aura of being Bi-Political. But you see there, was only one problem with that premise, you may have had the setting of a Morning Joe, but Dr. Rachel Maddow, is no Mika Brzezinski, and anyone with a brain would have already known this.
When she addressed Harold Ford, his facial expression showed an arrogance of delight, as her tone initially began with a political view of solidarity, but his expression quickly changed to a man of the defense as she began to attack the Policy Proposal he presented on Taxes during his brief run for Senator of New York. She called him out on his contradiction of calling for Corporate Tax Cuts while at the same time saying we have to get serious about the deficit, plainly put you are asking for a cut in taxes, which causes the deficit to increase, but then turn around and say we need to get the deficit under control.
Harold didn’t look too please once Rachel was done with him... It was funny watching David Brooks, he had a look that said, I learned at our last Meet the Press Roundtable not to think to highly of myself because Rachel Maddow has this tendency of making you feel intellectually inadequate, and she will do so while smiling. Harold Ford is still seeing stars after Rachel called him out and factually smacked him down.... David Gregory felt so sorry for Ford that he gave him the last minute of time with no rebuttal before they moved on to the subject of Afghanistan.
Once Rachel took over the conversation of Afghanistan, the Republican Panel changed out of their Obstructionist Propagandized Talking Point Uniforms and turned into eager willing and fascinating students of Dr. Maddow. The great thing about listening to Rachel speak is that she explains it in a way for all to understand including a Fox Viewer. The boys set there in awe of Rachel; no one interrupting her with their own interpretation because they simply had none, they just set and listened.
Recognizing her effectiveness and his job security, David Gregory quickly cut her off and turned to one of the students sitting at the table for their thoughts. First to David Brooks, who when called upon for a response to the Maddow Report, was honest in his assessment, "he had no answers; and then to Gillespie, who seemed to just put a bunch of words together that no one could follow. Gillespie as did Brooks seemed more comfortable listening to what Rachel had to say as oppose to countering what she had to say. They focused so intently on her every word, that you could almost in vision these two putting their hands up under their chins as they gazed into her eyes begging for her to tell them more.
Their looks showed of faces happy to hear for once, a true account, from a reporter who was not only brave enough to go but who was untainted by a cozy relationship others have developed with the military brass; she barely knew of anyone, being a virgin to click, would rendered her free from being influenced by manipulation and propaganda. Gillespie and Brooks knew enough about Rachel Maddow, to trust her reporting, they knew they could trust her accounts of our situation in Afghanistan and not just some unverified speculation from our willing to do the least amount of work Media. Contrary to unscientific popular belief more republican politician watch Rachel than they do Fox...
And as for Harold Ford, well he was never to be heard from again.
On Sunday, Harold Ford found out, as Rachel Maddow indicated in an interview she gave to Fox Business Market Watch’s Jon Friedman, that when she has a guest on her show, if they wrote a book, she reads it; if she interviews an actor/actress, she has watched their movies. One shouldn’t think by Maddow being away on special assignment that she would somehow hampered on the availability of facts, the bottom-line is, she does her research and even on "The Masquerading Democrat"
Is it just me but was Morning Joe, the only program on MSNBC not to recognize Rachel Maddow’s trip to Afghanistan.....
Any Thing To Add
Is it just me but was Morning Joe, the only program on MSNBC not to recognize Rachel Maddow’s trip to Afghanistan.....
_________________
Thank you for the excellent synopsis of yesterday's MTP (I have NOT watched the show in almost 2 years as I can NOT stand Gotcha Gregory)!
Harold Ford Jr. is INDEED a masquerading Democrat!
As for the snub from Morning Joke - do you by chance remember the smack down Rachel put on Joe Scarborough during the 2008 election on Race For the White House? He WALKED off the set in a full blown snit!
Thanks for the update. I missed MTP.....Rachel is the most honest, informed, straightforward person on any network. She base everything on facts rather than her political views.
Jo is a joke.....
I always check out to see who will be appearing on MTP. When I saw Rachael's name I was delighted. She is the best out there bar none. Republicans can call her names all they want - but try listening to her for a change. I had some relatives (all republicans) over about a year ago - we were watching Rachael at the time and one of my relatives said who is she? Who? Wow she's knows her stuff and is actually not rude at all.
I dont know what MTP you watched but all Maddow did was throw out a bunch of lies. Ford pretty much schooled her on the talking point of the Clinton "surplus". Democrats love to throw out talking points, problem they are just talking points. Newsbusters pretty muched tore through Maddow's rant and left a bluddy stump in its place. Try again libbies, your lies are to easy to spot anymore.
Excellent write up and summary of meet the press I think I'll start to Tivo it now so I wont miss anything good. You made the show sound like its worth watching again or was it just because Rachel was on it?
ucg -
You can also go here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/
(about 1/2 way down the page,...click Transcripts and the inventory of previous shows appears - it takes them about 8 hours to get it up on the website - sometimes longer)
and read the transcript each week. I refuse to watch it anymore because I can't stand David Gregory in this forum; but if I see they have guests on that I am interested in - well I'll read the transcript. If I know Rachel Maddow is on,...I will always watch it live. I personally LIKE boosting HER ratings.
i was wondering why MA would elect a Republican to fill a liberal/sociailists ex-Senate seat. Now we know, Brown may be a Republican, but he is no conservative.
What does it take to be a conservative? Taking money from corporations and voting no on every piece of legislation that the Democrats bring up?
The Party of No has no answers.
being conservative is not taking money away from hard working people and giving it to lazy bums who won't work for a living. Liberals take just as much money from corporations, then take more for working Americans, just to finance these socialist programs that are bankrupting the country. A conservative does not continue to tax/spend/borrow America's future. And Demwits that control the country now have not answers either, that's why unemployment is at the highest level it's been since Jimmy Carters admin.
What are you drinking? You can look this data up easily, but unemployment rates for Carter's administration (1977-1981) peaked at 7.4% whereas Reagan (1981-1989) saw three quarters over the 10% threshhold:
1977: 7.5 7.1 6.9 6.6
1978: 6.3 6.0 6.0 5.9
1979: 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.9
1980: 6.3 7.3 7.7 7.4
1981: 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.2
1982: 8.8 9.4 9.9 10.7
1983: 10.4 10.1 9.4 8.5
And these are Obama's rates since taking office:
2009: 8.2 9.3 9.7 10.0
2010: 9.7 9.7
So, TRY getting your facts straight before spewing!
Then what would you call the last administration from 00-06?
Besides - taxing and spending is how infrastructure is built. Its when you lower taxes and in crease spending that things go looney.
Regardless, he will be duck soup; Massachusetts will fire him soon! Wanna bet?
Hey Republicans, how's that hatey, lie-y thing workin' out fer ya?
hahaha - well said!
I gotta laugh when liberal jokers are so Dem-witted that they start stealing material from Sarah Palin!!!!!!!!!!!!
Massachussetts is a big financial center - for Senator Brown to back this measure is courageous as well as the right thing to do.
Re-regulation of the financial industry has been a crying need ever since Reagan's de-regulation launched 30 years of scandals with the savings & loan debacle. Sen. Brown is right, more yet needs to be done, but this is an important first step toward restoring sanity to American capital markets.
you liberals need to do your research before you make comments that are so wrong. It was Carter, then Clinton, who signed the bills that de-regulated the financial industry. And it was the right thing to do because it was bad law.
Matt, once again you re wrong. Regan's de-regulation "reforms" SET UP the savings & loan debacle. His de-regulation of not only financial but other business segments all resulted in disasters. Eventually banks must be forbidden to engage in securities trading, insurance products, and related activities - as they had been after FDR's regulations were approved. "Bad law?" Not at all!
I see Mattwm has gotten a hold of the latest Fox "News" talking point and a copy of the latest history book to come out of Texas.
Matt, just because you heard someone say a lie, and repeat it, doesn't make it true.
Matt,
Carter and Clinton did not write those bills, they happened in the Repub controlled Congresses of the time. Time for YOU to get your facts straight!
mattwm
Clinton signed the G&S repeal when sent the bill under a veto proof majority (90-4 ?) of a repub congress. Learn your history.
B.Honest-Just want to get this straight.....if bills pass in Republican controlled congress under Carter or Clinton, it's Republican's fault. But if it passes in Democratically controlled but under Bush it's Bush's fault? Is that why no one seems to feel any need to place blame on Obama? Even though he was in the Senate during Bush? Damn....I think I'm going to have to start taking notes if I'm ever going to understand this logic.
Dan,
Go back to school and learn some Civics. Congress is the one that makes the laws, they write them (or did except for the Bush years) and the President either signs or vetoes them. Bills are designated by who actually writes them. During the last 2 years of the Bush Admin, the Dems held a BARE majority and were hobbled at all turns by the Repubs, worse than now actually. That any bills passed during that time of lockup is a miracle, and almost all of them were Repub sponsored or Bi-Partisan sponsored, otherwise nothing would have gotten through. Bush could, and did, threaten to veto any bills that he did not like, or modified them into meaninglessness with his Signing Statements. Obama voted as a Senator the way he felt Government should be run and did his best to work for The People, just like he is doing Now.
Yep, just let me put that in my notes. Guess that Bare majority for the democrats were afraid of that veto. More so than any other bare majority. So obama voting for the tarp was for the people when he was a senator, but it was a HUGE deficit he Inherited as he claims that wasn't of his making. Seems like my civics classes were just fine. It's the lessons on blame I'm just lacking your expertise. I know how laws work, just can't get a grasp on how you think it changes with wherever the Democrats sit.
Here's Carter's take on deregulation of the airlines-the first step of deregulation that was such a Democratic talking point of the time. NOT Republican.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30038
B Honest-Carter never had a Republican majority Check YOUR facts-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Dan,
I stand corrected on the majorities of the period.
However, that section you show with Carter on deregulating the Airlines does not show much in the way of what his opinion on ALL deregulation was, and, from the airlines being deregulated, we saw the drastic decline in airline safety and what about the "Greater Number of Workers" that are there now...lol, NOT! And just how many airlines have gone out of business since?? Plus, there is a lot of talk now about Re-Regulating the airline industry so that it actually can operate more profitably, instead of the profits just being eaten up by the Corporate management and the airline itself left to starve.
Oh I agree with you. Regulation of capitalism is the only way to ensure the middle class as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the civil argument. I learned from it.
Dan,
If I am wrong about something, I will say, and I am always willing to learn more. Thanks for being civil yourself, it is rather refreshing actually!!
Harold Ford is a phony. I'm glad Rachel didn't let his continued BS go without countering it.
Scott Brown is being disingenuous, like all Republicans.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Is he serious? What a joke he is.
See what can be accomplished when you get the Republicans out of the way.
America sees the damage that can be done with out of control liberal/socialism, and they will make their disapproval known this November. Yea, Obama and company have done a lot of damage with the Republicans out of the way, that's for sure.
Just wait and see idiot. The polls are usually right, and in November, you worthless liberals will be eating your words.
I believe that all the worthless Liberals will be getting the last laugh come November. Obama will engage the people once again and will take the conservatives to the cleaners.
"And with the vote goes any future hope of Brown ever being on any presidential ticket."
Win - win.
Mr. Brown is at least on the right track. Congratulation are due. But there should be more strict regulations put on the banikng sysem, since the common people who put their funds in hands of banks can get robbed, by reckless investments of banks. One way is to increase the limits in bank account that is gurenteed by the FDIC. Right now it is $250,000 per account, which should be increased to one million dollars for each account and banks should contribute more to increase the fund available in FDIC in case the bank fails.
but this bill does not address the root cause of the financial problems, bad loans given to people that could not afford them, mosty by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These socialist organizations were protected by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and they continue to protect them by not including them in this regulatory bill.
Matt,
Fannie and Freddie were not to blame for the meltdown, Countrywide and a few other of the UNREGULATED Real Estate moguls were selling mortgages that were totally predatory, some 68% of them as a matter of fact. Fannie and Freddie Do Not Make Loans, they are required to buy certain ones, with very strict controls, from the Real Estate dealers. It was those dealers that made the bad loans, Fannie and Freddy did not take most of those loans, they were packaged up and the debts sold, without telling the people buying them that most of those mortgages were sold DESIGNED to fail...and made big bucks doing so. The Fannie and Freddy excuse has been totally debunked, get with it, this is July 2010 and the research has been done already, and your lies do not bear repeating!!
mattwm: Better check you facts before spewing. Freddie and Fannie do not give out loans they buy them up. The banks gave the loans.
@MattWorm: You have no real idea how Freddie and Fannie work. Stop spewing the half digested birdseed Chicken Little has been feeding you.
Matt,
Fannie and Freddie do NOT make loans; they purchase securitizations from the mortgage companies and banks. Too much of the problem is the big greedy banks; they thought that they could make extra money by giving mortgages to risky customers with a high interest rate. Also, the banks are big fans of variable interest rates, particularly when the rates go up. Once the lay-offs and shipping jobs overseas started (a big Republican tactic), people who bought too much home and/or one or both income earners lost their jobs then lost their homes. The banks' securitization (slicing and dicing loans) made it so most people had no idea who owned their mortgages. So, long story short, Fannie and Freddie buy securizations; they DO NOT make loans.
The mortgage melt-down was caused by greedy banks, pure and simple.
BTW, I work in the mortgage industry so I know what I'm talking about.
Think Progress: President Obama has higher rate of appointing women and minorities to the Court than any of his predecessors in their first term.
Yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer highlighted Republicans’ successful efforts to obstruct President Obama from appointing judges to the federal courts. Despite these efforts, the Inquirer notes, Obama has had a higher “rate of appointing women and people of color…than those of any of his precessors during their first year of their terms”:
Unfortunately, Republicans have shown a historically high level of obstruction in blocking Obama’s appointees. While Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had 91 percent of their judicial appointees confirmed in their first year of office, Obama only had 36 percent of them approved by the U.S. Senate.
Thank you President Obama!!!!!!!!!
not as historically obstructive as with GW Bushs appointments. liberals held up more of his than anyone in history... and maybe if Obama would pick qualified people, it wouldn't be so hard.
Matt,
Most of the appointments that were held up were because the people appointed had NO experience in the areas of expertise needed, were ideologically opposed the stated goals of the office they were nominated for, or were known to be nothing more than the cronies of Bush and/or Cheney.
Remember the "Heck of a job Brownie" did to New Orleans?? And that was the tip of the iceberg!
The Repubs are holding up the nominations now because the people nominated for those jobs are highly competent at what they do, and the Repubs trying to kill the Government just Cannot Have That, it would derail all of their goals of making government look bad by putting incompetents in those jobs....like Bush did.
I'm sorry B. Honest but you simply cannot take the higher ground when it comes to this. Everyone--Dem or Repubs---has their "reasons" for holding up appointments, but if want to Be Honest you will acknowledge that both parties are only playing politics to further their agenda and stop the other agenda. BOTH parties.
Lisa,
I actually i can and do take a higher ground. Yes, both parties have, historically, held up some appointments. And as far as agendas, the Repubs tried to sell us out to the Corporations, and the Dems are trying to repair the damage that the repubs did.
That being said, the Bush admin tried to pass through, and did, through recess appointments, many many more then Pres. Obama recently did, but the people that Bush nominated were, for the most part, not truly qualified for their jobs or were diametrically opposed to the reason that the job/agency was there for to begin with.
Incompetent folks included old Brownie, who did one heck of a job on New Orleans.
The person set in charge over Mine Safety was a Mining Corporation hack with NO safety background other than it was too expensive to implement, and the number of mining accidents soared.
The Hyper-Activist Roberts on SCOTUS, lied on the stand about how he would Not change Precedence, would only rule on "Balls and Strikes". Yet he turned precedence on it's head several times, the worst with going so far as to change the actual question on trial in Citizens United, instead of going with the narrower rulings set down by the lower Courts about whether the showing of certain types of commercials or films before an election, and changed it to whether Corporate Money is Equal to Free Speech.
Or the people he put in charge of the EPA, MMS and in control of Banking, and we can all see where THAT went.
The Democrats Knew a lot of these people, and had researched them better than Bush did, or at least knew what their agenda would be should they take office, and they were right.
By Comparison, President Obama has been very careful about trying to bring in experts, widely acclaimed experts, who will have some chance to try to overhaul their Agencies back to what they were supposed to do all along. The Republicans would rather things stay broken rather than have Pres. Obama actually (gasp) fix things, it would make him look too good and that would sink ANY chance of them coming back to power for a long, long time.
As it is, I am not too worried, the repubs, in their attempts to make the President look bad, have done nothing but smear themselves with BP's oil, their own lies and distortions, with their apologies to the people that caused the worst environmental disaster in the US after the President secured the money up front from them to help out those struggling in the Gulf to survive the loss of their jobs or businesses.
America is watching, and after eight years of Bush and the Repubs destroying the Economy, taking us into an illegal and unnecessary war, without funding it, and gutting the regulatory structures within the Govt. and all of the drastic repercussions that have come from it (bank Collapse, job market collapse, housing market collapse, deadly mine accidents and massive oil spill due to lack of regulatory oversight) and the Fact that the Repubs have done NOthing but try to obstruct Pres. Obama at every turn. I do not think that the Repubs have a snowball's chance in Arizona to come out ahead this fall, let alone in 2012. Bush did not even try to hide the illegality of most of his actions, just used signing statement along with the fact that he controlled the DoJ is all that kept him from being arrested for treason.
B honest-very careful bringing in experts like Tom Daschle? Guess you're still stuck on that Hope slogan huh? Hoping people don't see what a failure he's become? Hoping the voters in November weren't planning a vacation in the Gulf? Oh yeah, that's not his fault was it? That was the previous administration.
Again the voters were bamboozled by a man who stuck to his talking points and promised to be something he isn't. The sad thing is that the voters of Massachusetts are stuck with this man for 6 years and we only have 2 1/2 more to go with Obama.
I think anyone east of the Appalachians and west of the Rockies is probably not a true conservative. They must pander to all the liberals that live in their states, so Republican or not, those people are probably controlled by their liberals constituents.
Mattwm.....Your absolutely right. Way right. God forbid that elected officials vote according to their constituants wishes.
Yeah? If so How come the Demos voted yes for HCR, Im sure the 70 percent that didnt want it and still hope it'll be repealed are comforted that you feel this way. Or where those people all just from the Repubs?
Wrong Brown was elected is a special election to fullfil the rest of TK term when he died. Brown is up for reelelction in 2010.
Scott Brown is not up for re-election until 2012.
If the final billl, another 2000+ page "blockbuster", still has racial profiling and quotas for small business capital, we are truly toast. Has anybody read this bill?
Net effect will be to create the housing crisis in the small business sector as well. Talk about job killing....
if we wanted to talk about "job killing" the topic would be the "Last Administration"
b dune,
I hate to defend Bush because I didn't vote for him nor his father. But I believe the unemployment rate was around 5% during most the Bush years and got up to about 7% when he left office. Then Obama promised it would not go over 8% if he got the $800 billion stimulus bill on his desk. Result - 5 million more jobs lost in 18 months.
Ben
I hate to bring it up but I think when Bush left office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month....think that has been curtailed.
think the first course of action is always to stop the bleeding...
Ben, yes the rate was only about 7% when Bush left office, but we were still losing more than 700,000 jobs a month, and that type of thing does not quit. If he would have remained in office another 6 months his percentage would have gone way above 7%
b dune,
And let me remind you that companies like mind had a backlog of projects and employees were told in the summer of 2008 to stay put and don't go anywhere. Right after Obama got elected, the brakes were applied to the projects and the layoffs began. Companies are still scare to death of this man.
verno,
Here's a little parallel. When Clinton took over the Bush Senior recession, the unemployment had climbed from about 5% to 7% during Senior's last year. The rate continued to climb under Clinton to about 7.75%, and then began dropping until it reached 4.5%. All presidents inherit recessions. How they turn things around is how they are judged in the next election. So far, the rate shows no signs of declining after a year and a half.
Companies are not afraid of Obama they are afraid of Wall Street. Wall Street can make or break a company in a minute with analysts stating that a company didn't meet their forecasts. Analysts are quick to make statements of the companies operating strengths or weakness without finding out all the facts. Companies are very afraid of the industry analysts and Wall street in general.
Now there is a solution.. Let's Nationalize Wall Street!!
Then "One Bad A$$ Mistake America" can tell us when we are making money, audit their own books and take the excess cash back to his native Nigeria....
Their is no "financial reform bill", the bill that Mr. Brown plans on supporting is a toothless wonder written by Wall Street lobbyist, read it. Too big to fail is still too big to fail with the taxpayer still on the hook to bail out the banks next time they get caught with their pants down, which won't be long because they decided not to bother regulating all the smoke and mirrors derivative trading. All the meaningful verbage has been carved out of the bill by our masters on Wall Street, America has the best Congress money can buy no one can argue about that, what an abysmal failure it is for the American people. Vote for whom ever you like you will never be represented in D.C., representation is reserved for the wealthy and powerful my peasant friends.
The Truth Be Told!
So, the US Chamber of Commerce is upset with our Presidents attempts to have the capitalist engage with us citizens in a moral way. Too bad. It has always been the capitalists that have caused the financial earthquakes that have decimated what little wealth you working person have been able to attain.
Think about it; did you, the individual, make so many bad loans to people who you knew could never pay off, all the while make money hand over fist on the up-front charges and fees that filled the pockets of those that did? No you didn't. It was the big corporations, represented by the Chamber, that made excessive money while you and I lost almost everything we had gathered.
I lost over 65% of my retirement savings and the value of my home decreased as well. I was 5 years away from retirement before all this happened due to the greed of big business. The big business mindset of the gentry vs. the serfs is still in play.
And to top it all off we have an activist Supreme Court saying that corporations have the same rights as breathing humans. If that is true, then all corporations should be in jail for the disregard of the laws of the land; that is if the laws were applied across the board and not just against the humans.
Over the years the Supreme Court has said that corporations have the same rights as you and I, and, apparently, none of the responsibilities. Corporations cannot vote, they cannot go to jail, so the question is, why do they believe they should have ANY rights? Corporations are things and things have NO rights given to it by the Creator unless we are the creator.
If, in the USofA, corporations do indeed have all the rights and none of the responsibilities of the citizens, then how can I become a corporation and then not be held responsible when somebody dies because of my negligence?
However, knowing human nature as I do, I see none of this happening. This country is run by and for the Corporations and the Ultra-wealthy. The Great Unwashed is just cannon fodder.
Question: Which entity does the right, i.e. the republican party, the tea party, the conservatives advocate for, corporations or individual humans? Think BP and slushfund.
Corporations have enslaved us economically and culturally for far too long. It is past time for us to remove this burden from our shoulders and demand that the corporations serve us and not the other way around.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
It would do us well to heed his words or we shall see the demise of this once great experiment: The United States of America.
scott brown made sure the banks would not have to foot the bill. ($19 billion) now think, it was the banks who received all this bailout money, but $19 billion was to much too ask that they foot the bill for they're recklessness. when are the american people going to start seeing through these slick politicians. scott brown is standing for nothing. the mantra followed by the republican politician is to always protect big business. while all along casting a deciding vote , as long as it does not penalize big business. the problem is that mr. brown has made it clear that if our economy crashes again, it will be the american people not the banks themselves who will foot the bill. simply put the republicans see this economic crisis as an over indulgence by the american consumer at the expense of corporate interest. the consumer caused the economic crises, therefore the consumer should pay for it with deficit spaending. scott brown is voting for this bill, while along parking his truck up on "WALL STREET" just like president obama told the massachusettes voter he would. $19 billion dollars, just what part would this $19 billion have played in this financial reform bill. someone in the press needs to look into this so that the massachusettes voters can really see what mr. brown stands for. he's a phony, pure and simple. had that $19 billion still been in the bill mr. brown would not have voted for the bill. WHAT' WRONG WITH A $19 BILLION BANK TAX? to those who may be reading this comment, can you honestly say the banks have paid the price for the trillions of dollars that the american public has lost. NO. but yet we are watching MR. BROWN claim that he is voting for something while protecting the very people that the bill seeks to regulate. SHAMEFUL!
Hey Tea baggers what can Brown do for you? Stab you in the back while you cry Et Tu Scotty? Yeah now that the needed $19 billion bank tax is gone he'll vote for the bill. Don't be fooled this self serving tea bagging liar isn't being bipartisan, he's voting to appease the voters in his Blue State in hopes of getting reelected in two years. It will be good for President Obama and the Democrats to get yet another legislative victory over the dopes of nope who want nothing more than to stop any meaningful reforms that could fix all the problems they've created when they were in power.
Two things, first Scott Brown is from one of the most liberal states in the union and it would be political suicide if the didn't do what his constituents want. Secondly, Brown may be the first sensible Republican to come about as the party begins their slow healing process from the damage done by the extremist Fascist wannabe right wing.
Maybe Scott Brown is a little like Charlie Christ, in that he's willing to work accross the aisle and compromise (not all his way or the highway) to get things done. Not totally obstructionist party of no.
Lets see. The Republicans caused the financial crisis? I guess I didn't realize that Senators Dodd and Frank were Republicans? In the 1990 they sponsored a bill that made housing affordable to every American regardless of your income and your ability to repay your loan. Then Wall Street got involved with there crazy derivatives and off we go. Now, the Democrats have been in charge of Congress since Jan. 7, 2007 and we still want to blame others. The poor victims, Democrats.
Hay Snuffy how about Phil Graham Where has he been hiding the last few years since he wrote the legislation you blame on Frank and Dodd ?You moron You gotta be a tea Peeeer
Phil Graham is sucking Tom Delay somewhere near the border with Mexico!!!!
Wow, Brown must be doing something CORRECT. Because the radical lefties are crying about him not doing enough and the radical righties are crying about him not being a good enough conservative.
My conclusion: Brown is sane and the criticism against him is typical, insecure, personality-problem, behavior on the part of the nutjob radicals.
Could the same then be said of Obama who is criticized by the right for not being conservative enough and by the left for compromising too much with the right and therefore not being liberal enough? Does that mean that he too is then doing something correct?
The lefties insane? You and your people are going insane since the black man won the White House.
Move on. Bawawawawawawahahahahahahah
why not! Boston hates NYC; therefore, stick it to them! he is a liberal running for office in a lefty greenie weenie state, what else can he do?
I can only speak for myself, but I love NYC! Can't wait to go back this summer for a few days. Lots and lots of things to see and do.
Pat.....bevus is probably a Red Sox fan.
So, he got the $19 B tax out of the bill which the banks and hedge funds were going to have to pay!
Since the Obama gov't. said the bill was going to "cost" $ 20 B, whose going to pay for it NOW, your grandchildren???
I agree the Tax was a case of making the offenders, the banks, pay for the cost of their own regulation after they proved to the world that they could not be trusted to self-regulate, and after they nearly brought our financial system down in ruins after who knows what cost to the tax payers. Is this the Republican idea of fiscal respeonsibility? Let the crooks get away scott free and put them back in business at the same time! Way to go Republicans, hold the bill hostage while you make it as advantageous as possible for the bad guys.
Ok, what's next, let see what the Republicans can do to screw up the Illegal immigration reform. They already have the public whipped up into a froth over it. Hey I know, lets give tax breaks to American companies who hire illegals. Put an incremental scale on the tax break so that the more illegals you can hire the more of a break you get. I am sure we can get unanimous Repup support for that!
"Fiscal Responsibility" is a republican slogan like "thinks go better with Coke". It has no influence on their behavior.