It is currently 05/23/24 4:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 10 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 6:36 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I fully expect this amendment to be HUGELY controversial ~ but I am NOT particularly surprised that yet another R politician exhibits that he either [a] cannot read, or does not comprehend what he reads ~ the fervor to fulfill the "vow" taken to stall and oppose everything is making a LOT of R politicos look ... stupid ~ remember the old saying: better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt ~ Sooz


By Pat Garofalo on Nov 19th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

Gregg: Kanjorski Amendment Allows Gov't To Break Up Wal-Mart 'Because They Don't Have A Union'

Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee approved an amendment to its regulatory reform bill that would allow federal regulators, in consultation with the Treasury Secretary, to require any firm deemed a threat to the U.S. economy to break up and shrink. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), was bitterly opposed by the financial services industry, but still passed 38-29 (with three Democrats voting against).

Though regulatory reform legislation has been moving in the House for weeks, the Senate only started today, with members of the Senate Banking Committee giving their opening statements regarding Chairman Chris Dodd's (D-CT) reform bill. Republicans, who have already said that they will lend the regulatory reform effort zero support, were unanimously opposed to the bill, particularly the provision to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).

But Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) also took a few minutes to criticize the Kanjorski amendment, stating that it was too "European," and that it empowers the government to break apart Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart, the latter because "they don't have a union":

Quote:

The Kanjorski amendment that was dealt with yesterday on the House side was an exercise in European politics where there was some belief that a group of thoughtful people can choose winners and losers in the marketplace that are still doing well, that aren't at risk, and decide how those winners and losers should be structured. [b]Well where does that stop? Is Coca-Cola, should they be broken up under the House bill? Wal-Mart, maybe, because they don't have a union, should be broken up under the House bill? This is undermining the American advantage, especially relative to our European neighbors.

Watch it:

While Wal-Mart's lack of unionization is a shame, Kanjorski's amendment clearly states that it only pertains to financial institutions, which can be broken apart only for threatening the financial system, and only after more stringent capital requirements have proven ineffective in removing the threat:

Image

Scott Valentin, the banking analyst at FBR Capital Markets, told DealBook that he expects the Kanjorski's push will meet its demise in the Senate, as "Wall Street's objections…will win out in the end." Valentin "based his opinions partly on meetings he had with Senate Republican staffers the day before the final language of the bill was released."

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... kanjorski/



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 6:36 am • # 2 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
the drug problem in the US is worse than i thought.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/20/09 7:05 am • # 3 
Okay, it has nothing to do with WalMart, though I think the amendment is dangerous. Here's what the report from the House Financial Services Committee website press release summarizes the amendment to do:
Quote:
The Kanjorski amendment would empower federal regulators to rein in and dismantle financial firms that are so large, inter-connected, or risky that their collapse would put at risk the entire American economic system, even if those firms currently appear to be well-capitalized and healthy.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fi ... 1809.shtml

The bold emphasis is mine. That part really bothers me. If there is no actual sign of trouble, I think government needs to keep their noses to themselves rather than break apart a functioning firm and risk making it dysfunctional. I think that's why Gregg was using Walmart as an analogy, trying to explain that it's odd to punish a firm for being successful as a means of preventing failure. I would also be very concerned with the amount of power this grants to the committee in charge of these decisions and the huge risk of corruption...your competitor is getting too big and successful, so bribe a few committee members to decide they need to be split up.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 7:27 am • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Calluna, I agree it is a VERY far-reaching amendment ~ and I expect it to cause huge controversy ~ I haven't read the full amendment, and am not endorsing/rejecting it until I do so ~ I want to know what kind of "triggers" might be put into place ~ I see the "even if those firms currently appear to be well-capitalized and healthy" clause as a protection against "bubbles" ~ don't forget: it was seemingly "well-capitalized and healthy" banks and Wall Street firms that created the derivatives and subprime mess that brought us to the brink ~ but Gregg [intentionally?] MISrepresented the amendment by applying it to retail and tying in unions ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 8:13 am • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
What's new about this bill. Wasn't AT&T broken up a number of years ago because of the threat it posed to the American economy. It's amazing that anyone wants to retain the same lack of regulation that allowed the current financial crisis to occur. Do they have no idea or don't they care what would have happened if AIG has been left to fail?


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/20/09 2:40 pm • # 6 
No, actually, AT&T was broken up[ because MCI filed a law suit against it for proprietary acts violation as a monopoly for refusing to allow other carriers on their towers. MCI at the time was trying to provide communication between trucks on the interstate from Dallas to Chicago. By virtue of it's monopoly, AT&T monopolized radio sites on public land and all frequencies approved for transmission. They went into court with an attitude, they left in pieces... which are slowly going back together.. but can never be the monopoly they were...

And a thought for the season...

Just think..........
If the Indians had given the Pilgrims a donkey
instead of a turkey, we would all be having
a piece of ass this Thanksgiving!!..



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/20/09 2:49 pm • # 7 

Sooz.. why do you find Sen. Judd Gregg so much a exercise in reading and comprehension, rather than one of knowing his opponents true purpose. Democrats have been after Wall Mart to force union and medical insurance penalties in a number of NE states, as well as on the more left leaning "news" channels. While the are thousands of companies the offer neither, Wallmart has been singled out. Why, because they are successful, what they are doing works... And with all the reasons they give for NOT working there.. it seems to be the only store I go to that you can find employees that will go out of their way to assist... not the was a disgruntled employee would act.. I think Gregg might just be trying to make a point... if it ain't broke, don't f*** with it! Learned that piece of advice in the Navy!

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that
one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and
three or more is a congress."-- John Adams



Last edited by bobspics on 11/20/09 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 3:23 pm • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Bob, my comment stems from the fact that retailers/unions are NOT included in the amendment ~ so there was no reason for Gregg to bring it up, other than as a red herring ~ the Rs do NOT know the Ds "true purpose" any more than the Ds know the Rs "true purpose" ~ it is all speculation ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/20/09 4:17 pm • # 9 

They both have only two true purposes.. make money and stay in office... anything beyond that is immaterial.. yes, I am jaded.. and sick and tired of status quo.. change my A**.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/20/09 7:46 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
bobspics wrote:

Sooz.. why do you find Sen. Judd Gregg so much a exercise in reading and comprehension, rather than one of knowing his opponents true purpose. Democrats have been after Wall Mart to force union and medical insurance penalties in a number of NE states, as well as on the more left leaning "news" channels. While the are thousands of companies the offer neither, Wallmart has been singled out. Why, because they are successful, what they are doing works... And with all the reasons they give for NOT working there.. it seems to be the only store I go to that you can find employees that will go out of their way to assist... not the was a disgruntled employee would act.. I think Gregg might just be trying to make a point... if it ain't broke, don't f*** with it! Learned that piece of advice in the Navy!

"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that
one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and
three or more is a congress."-- John Adams


Bobs- isn't WalMart one of the MAIN ADVOCATES for single payer healthcare?


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 10 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.