Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.


Advertisement


Join Our Email List
Email:  
For Email Marketing you can trust


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
2010 Tag Standards
2010 Candidate Profiles RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Mass. Conservatives
Ben Wetmore
Boston Maggie
Conservative's Conscience
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
Deval Patrick Watch
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Hub Politics
Mass Roots
Miss Kelly
New England Republican
No Looking Backwards
Notes from D.R. Tucker
Peter Porcupine
Save WRKO
Scaling the Hill
South Shore Republican Voice
Worcester Freedom Trail
Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Berkshires Blog
Chimes at Midnight
Left in Lowell
MA lefty blogs
Progressive Mass.
Quriltai on the Shore
Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Humble Libertarian
von Mises Blog
Ayn Rand Institue
Young Americans for Liberty
Hyper Local
My Dedham
Dracut Forum
Dracut Musings
Holyoke First
Hub Blog
ShrewsBuried
Talking Stoneham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Eric Dahlberg's Blog
Mass. Media
Conservative's Conscience
The Daily Briefing
Keller @ Large Blog
Ken Pittman
The Lone Republican
Political Intelligence
Pundit Review
Talking Politics
Commonwealth Unbound
Dan Kennedy
Greater Boston
Michael Graham
National
73 Wire
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Pardon My English
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State
Sudden Stop
Wonkette


Advertisement


My Vote On Financial Reform

by: Senator Scott Brown

Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:35:10 PM EDT


(Not the outcome I would have wanted, but I thank Scott for thinking of us and posting his thoughts here. - promoted by Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno)

I want to take this opportunity to clearly lay out some of the reasons that informed my decision to support the Wall Street reform bill.

Over the July recess, I once again reviewed the legislation in its entirety to ensure that nothing else had been slipped into the bill that would prevent me from supporting it. After finishing reading it, I decided that while the bill was far from perfect, it was vastly improved from the version we started with at the beginning of this process. In my opinion, it includes important measures that will help prevent another meltdown like the one in 2008 that left millions of Americans out of work and saw our economy take its worst dip since the Great Depression.

While reasonable people can disagree about the details, the vast majority of Americans believe we need to take steps to prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts of the banks.  We had a choice: do nothing, or try to address a real problem that shook the financial foundation of our country.

Senator Scott Brown :: My Vote On Financial Reform
This bill is not funded through higher taxes, which, as you know, is a non-starter with me anytime, particularly now when nearly one in ten Americans is unemployed and our economy is still struggling. During the conference committee negotiations, a $19 billion tax increase was slipped into the 2,300 page legislation in the dead of night. This was simply unacceptable to me, and I could not support the bill until this tax was removed.

Other helpful provisions in the legislation include:

• An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis;

• New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks;

• Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook;

• Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated;

• Strengthens enforcement of existing laws to stop Bernie Madoff type fraud by Wall Street executives so that American families and businesses are protected;

• Lowers interchange fees for Main Street businesses so they can continue being economic engines in their communities and protect consumers who feel the impact of these increased fees, as much of the cost is often passed onto them.

I agree that we still need to significantly change the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do business, as both played a large part in the financial meltdown and must be addressed in the future. I will continue to push to determine what role these entities had on the financial meltdown and ensure they are held accountable.  

As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner and review it on its merits rather than its political supporters. At times, you may disagree with my final decisions, but know that each vote I cast is taken after very serious consideration and review of the issue and is with the very best interests of the citizens of Massachusetts and the country first and foremost.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

My thoughts (5.00 / 2)
• Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated;

That is capitalism, there is risk inherent in all capitalist enterprises.  If the risk is disclosed to those participating in it I don't see whay it should be illegal.  Also I'm one that doesn't think gambling is bad so the casino reference doesnt' help.

• Strengthens enforcement of existing laws to stop Bernie Madoff type fraud by Wall Street executives so that American families and businesses are protected;

Much like new gun laws, the laws are already on the books.  The need isn't new laws it's enforcing those we already have.

We got into this problem BECAUSE of government actions.  Government insured the bad loans through the FHA that were given to many borrowers.  All FHA loans are sub-prime.  With the backing of the Federal Government and the rules put in place by the government the mortgage market went crazy.  Those that said stop were ridiculed.  

Now a couple of questions for you Scott.

Is the Federal Reserve still able to take over private enterprise without a vote of Congress?  

It has been reported on Fox News as brought to our attention by Barbara Anderson that the legislation gives the Federal Government unfettered access to our financial records with no 4th amendment protections.  What is your position on this onerous provision in the legislation?

As I read the bill I'm sure there will be more questions.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


Whoah, that TOO? (5.00 / 3)
The article I sent from Fox News (sorry it was so long,will use a link next time) didn't say anything about "giving the Federal Government unfettered access to our financial records with no 4th amendment protections". The article was about this bill creating diversity czars to make sure that minorities get their fair share of management positions throughout our financial system. However, with 2300 pages, it wouldn't surprise me if it gave the government access to whatever it wants.
When asked by Avi Nelson on RKO today about the 2300 pages, Scott said that much of it was just definitions, as if definitions in a bill are some kind of filler. In fact, much change comes FROM the definitions (Eg,"definition of financial institutuion now includes pet shops and Starbuck cafes").I hate being bullbleeped at. So forgive me if I'm not humbly grateful that the senator has graced us with his presence here.
We're not doing Scott Brown (or our country) any favor by excusing mistakes. He can still find some provision in this bill that will keep him from voting for it. Or did he get the Maxine Waters diversity language removed over the weekend?

[ Parent ]
I thought that was you. (0.00 / 0)
I don't know where I saw that. I'm trying to find it. I may retract the statement.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
nope it was Edward Wagner in an email (0.00 / 0)
here is the article

The final version of President Barack Obama's financial regulatory bill, hammered out in negotations between House and Senate Democrats, contains a provision that grants the federal government the power to subpoena any financial information it wants from any financial institution without showing probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The 4th Amendmnent to the U.S. Constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The devil Scott is most often in the details.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
Denial (5.00 / 1)
A staffer from the Brown campaign told me today, when I asked, that individual financial information could not be accessed by the federal government. However, if the financial information that is subpoened includes that of the clients, why wouldn't it be? I'll go with Ed Wagner's interpretation until I see different language. Anyone have any?

[ Parent ]
I was told the same thing (0.00 / 0)
probably by the same staffer.

Trust the government Barbara, they are here to help.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
As I said when I first came to Washington, (0.00 / 0)
As I said when I first came to Washington, I remain committed to reviewing each and every piece of legislation that comes before me and make sure it's good for my state, doesn't raise taxes and helps our economy. As I have done during my short time in office, I will continue to approach each bill in an open-minded manner and review it on its merits rather than its political supporters. At times, you may disagree with my final decisions, but know that each vote I cast is taken after very serious consideration and review of the issue and is with the very best interests of the citizens of Massachusetts and the country first and foremost.  

I don't entirely understand this bill, even after reading pages and pages of background and paragraph after paragraph of opinion on this site.

I do believe Scott Brown means what he says however, and I too applaud his courtesy of coming to our RMG community to explain. I hope he is accorded the same courtesy here.  


Thoughts and Questions (0.00 / 0)
I have a couple of thoughts and a few questions:

THOUGHTS:

1) I will continue to assert that you cannot have financial regulatory reform without addressing FNM and FRE.  They are the multi-trillion dollar elephant that continues to be avoided by those in DC, in both parties, whose careers they have supported and fostered for decades.  That the bill is named Dodd-Frank only adds insult.

2) The comment that the bill does not raise taxes is disingenuous at best.  The bill is being "paid" for by shifting unallocated TARP $ to this undertaking.  These TARP dollars will need to be paid back and the mechanism to pay them back will be, yes, taxes.  If your goal was to say that TARP should not be used anymore, I agree, but you were in the catbird's seat, why not ask for a 2 for 1 TARP allocation.  Use 19 billion here and retire another $19 billion.  Please do not forget that TARP is not free, we do have to pay it back.

QUESTIONS:

1) You, and many others have said we have to deal with FNM and FRE (see #1 under comments).  My question is WHEN?  Set out to establish dates.  We keep hearing soon which morphs into next year.  It is time to undertake to get control over these two entities that flaunt their power over DC on a daily basis.

2) An audit of the Fed is somewhat of a start.  Way too limited.  How about pushing for audits of the Fed every two years so we can all see how they are performing their role and serving the public good?  Two years with a delay in issuing would give time to complete the audit and get far enough from the period to avoid impacts to policy.

3) There has been some press in the past few days about diversity czars or mini-czars being created as a result of this bill.  Don't we already have EEOC rules that apply?  If so, aren't we just creating new rules and roles when existing regulations, if enforced, should work to provide the protections to all seeking work in the federal government?

4) Who makes the final decisions on taking over companies, industries, etc. under this bill?  It was an act on behalf of Treasury Secretary Geithner that unilaterally extended unlimited support to FRE and FNM.  Does this bill reduce the potential for unelected officials committing what could be trillions of OUR money without the input of OUR representatives?

5) You mention regulating banks to prevent risky activities and behaviors from going unregulated or unnoticed yet you have also been ascribed with having softened the requirements to allow, among others, State Street, to continue to trade for their own accounts.  Wasn't State Street one of the players in the Special Purpose Vehicle arena with billions "hidden" off its balance sheet?  Isn't this part of the behavior that the bill seeks to stop?

Like Rob I may have more as I read more.  Don't agree with the vote, but appreciate that you took time to read the bill and are not hiding from your vote.


How the heck would he hide from his vote? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I am stunned ! Sarbanes/Oxly all over again. (0.00 / 0)
That giant sucking sound of financial retraction will be deafening.

I am truly disappointed with this vote.  

We the people control our own destiny


Brown is SImply Not A Fiscal Conservative... (5.00 / 2)
There is no use here for the term RINO. It doesn't really matter that he is a Republican (in name or otherwise). Part of Senator Brown's platform was to be a fiscal conservative. Now in numerous votes of consequence, Brown is siding with the fiscal illiterates.

The sad truth is that he is worse than Martha Coakley. Coakley would have obviously voted for this bill, and no one would have batted an eye. Brown votes for this bill, and the left simply uses him as their pretty Ken doll - a Republican with sense enough to be bipartisan and vote for the bill.

I have no idea who is advising Brown - but no intelligent person would say this is good for the free markets or helps grow an economy and creates jobs. It does nothing to address the issues that caused the '08 meltdown - nothing. If anything, this bill exacerbates the problem. It is flat out horrible - and a slap in the face of anyone who voted for Brown.

Don't be shocked when he gets primaried by a real fiscal conservative...

Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.  


I love it when Baker Supporters get pulled into a Scott Brown conversation . . . (0.00 / 0)
Brown is SImply Not A Fiscal Conservative - Hayek

But Hayek, your choice for Gov is Charlie "I blew off Barbara Anderson's Day One Tax Act Pledge" Baker and for LG .... Richard "I have a CLT rating of 43%" Tisei.

 

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
What is the conversation? (0.00 / 0)
Brown is not a fiscal conservative.
That statement says nothing about Baker.
I do happen to believe that Baker is to the right of Brown on fiscal issues. I also know with certainty that Baker is much smarter than Brown. Also, Baker ran a company - he is an executive. Brown is a career politician.
Further, Brown is a legislator - Baker will hopefully be governor. It is a big difference. Brown's voting has given cover to Dems to pass their liberal economic agenda. Let's see if Baker adds regulation and increases spending (my guess is that he will not).
 

Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom.  

[ Parent ]
What is the conversation? (0.00 / 0)
Brown is not a fiscal conservative.
That statement says nothing about Baker.

Sorry Hayek, I know it's inconvenient to bring up Charlie "I blew off Barbara Anderson's Day One Tax Act Pledge" Baker when you are badmouthing Scott Brown's Conservative street cred.....

Forget I even mentioned it.  ;)

But since you brought up Baker

I also know with certainty that Baker is much smarter than Brown.

I have to know, what bull shit measuring stick do you use to measure smartness?

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
I see my name here but (0.00 / 0)
I don't have a "Day One Tax Act Pledge". ???

[ Parent ]
It WAS announced in conjunction with your endorsement... (0.00 / 0)
April 16, 2010
Baker and Tisei Announce Barbara Anderson's Endorsement and Their Day 1 Tax Relief Act
WAKEFIELD, MA - Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government, today endorsed Charlie Baker and Richard Tisei for Governor and Lieutenant Governor at a press conference to unveil the Baker/Tisei Day 1 Tax Relief Act.
"I'm confident that Charlie and Richard will fight for the taxpayers of Massachusetts, working to cut taxes and restoring fiscal responsibility to Beacon Hill. This is the strong leadership we need to regain our fiscal footing, creating a favorable environment for taxpayers and businesses to succeed and grow, in which government starts to work for us," said Anderson.

Baker and Tisei's Day 1 Tax Relief Act comprises three bills they plan to file with the Legislature on their first day as Governor and Lt. Governor:

 * Repeal Beacon Hill's Sales & Meals Tax Increase
 * Repeal Beacon Hill's New Liquor Tax
 * Cut the Income Tax Back to 5%

"Families and businesses have adjusted to current economic realities by making tough budget cuts while Governor Patrick and Treasurer Cahill have operated state government by a different set of rules," said Baker. "Rolling back the income and sales tax to 5% will provide immediate relief to those families and businesses burdened by Beacon Hill's tax increases."

Tisei added, "The liquor tax has adversely affected businesses here in Massachusetts while border businesses have watched former customers go to New Hampshire and Rhode Island instead."

In the last four years, Patrick and Cahill have overseen a massive increase in the size of state government - 20% in the first two years of Patrick's administration - while adding $2 billion more in taxes and fees. Anderson recognized Baker and Tisei's fiscal leadership and the need for Massachusetts to rein in out-of-control spending.

Today's announcement is one of a host of policy solutions put forward by the Baker-Tisei team and for more information please visit www.charliebaker2010.com.




[ Parent ]
Ughh (0.00 / 0)
Another punch in the gut from our boy Scott.

Scott Brown #FAIL (5.00 / 1)
This bill is not a few minor changes away from being acceptable.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

False Premise (5.00 / 1)
Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook

We are not on the hook for corporate failures. You don't want banks, or automakers, or anyone bailed out, don't do it!

Citibank and others didn't stroll into the Treasury and take bags full of money. Congress voted to bail them out. Wall Street did not victimize the taxpayers, Congress did.

There is presently no mechanism to bailout sinking corporations within the Federal government, so it doesn't need repealing.  

Stock up on pudding


New draft of bill (5.00 / 1)
you're right, fluffy. Who needs 2300 words?
Hows about a bill that says, "The taxpayers and their grandchildren will never again bail out ANYbody.  So don't screw up because you'll have to live with the consequences."

[ Parent ]
Because if they did that (0.00 / 0)
they couldn't sink their teeth into anymore of our flesh. It's never about doing what's right with these guys. It's always about power and control. I blame Otto von Bismark. (Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg for the reference.)

Why is President Obama's Justice Dept. running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and possibly MS-13 too?

Karl (TLC)Weld


[ Parent ]
My read on Scott Brown's call (0.00 / 0)
I'm disappointed -- but not surprised -- by Sen. Brown's position on this latest federal government power grab.

Hey, did anyone think we were electing a conservative Republican -- does anyone think a conservative Republican could have been elected to replace Ted Kennedy, honestly?

Electing Scott Brown -- in some ways -- is certainly better than having elected another Harry Reid echo by voting for "Marsha" Coakley, I think we can all agree.

So here we are, having elected another New England Republican to the Senate.  We didn't lose -- we just didn't gain a whole lot of much of anything either.

Scott Brown's looking for a re-election strategy for 2012 -- you know, "moderate" like Snow and Collins.  He wants to keep the job.  We may prefer him to his upcoming Democrat challenger; or we may not care.

Sen. Brown, if he's smart, better hope we do -- or he'll be back to his real estate law business, a flamed-out shooting star.  He won Kennedy's seat in a wave of political discontent.  If he continues allowing that discontent, and it still exists when he wants our affirmation . . . well, he does so at his risk and may be disappointed.

Let's hope his advisors recognize this simple fact.

It's real easy to toss each faction a piece of meat, placating them for the moment -- creating an image of moderation.  Each faction appreciates this for the moment.  But this causes alienation from other factions.  When enough alienated factions are disenchanted, an amorphous and collective opposition critical mass begins to form.  If that critical, disillusioned mass coalesces at the right moment, we will have a new U.S. Senator.

"You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time."  That was, I think, Abraham Lincoln -- the first Republican president.

Fannie May and Freddie Mac aren't touched by this obscenity -- Rep. Barney Frank's and Sen. Chris Dodd's sacred protege agencies -- yet Barney and Chris created this monstrous bill, with input from the likes of Rep. Maxine Waters.

But Scott has found common ground, with his help enough to push it through into law.

Whoa.

Let's hope his advisors recognize this simple fact.

Before it's too late.

Chip Ford --
Dir. of Operations, CLT



        "Every tax is a pay cut -- A tax cut is a pay raise."


The left's talking points, not thoughtful analysis (0.00 / 0)
This is extraordinarily disappointing, both the decision and the explanation of it.

I, like one of the other folks above, was an enthusiastic supporter, complete with home made yard sign--posted on this site, in fact--car magnate and the rest.  On the morning of the election I didn't mind standing out on the edge of town as the snow fell, holding my big "BROWN today" sign up high as commuters drove by.  After all, this was a real chance for real change.

And then this.

Senator Brown benefited greatly by running as an outsider, but the statement above, complete with staff-supplied talking points, seems like more of the same.  The reasons stated make little to no sense and the language embraces the big government mentality we used to hearing coming out of Washington.

Specifically . . .

- An audit of the Federal Reserve to examine the emergency lending that took place during the heart of the financial crisis;

> We don't need a 2300 page bill to require an audit.  

And if we're doing audits, shouldn't we be looking at the legislation pushed by Dodd and Frank a few years ago that drove Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards and buy high-risk loans, helping fuel the asset bubble that burst?

- New requirements that take steps toward ending the "too big to fail" mentality among banks;

> Do any of us think that this will be the outcome?  No, the bill provides more justification for government intervention to "protect" consumers and the economy.  

- Helps end bailouts so American taxpayers never again have to be on the hook;

> Seriously?  No.  Only the most naive would believe this.  Is its inclusion a reflection on the Senator and his staff--or on their opinion of us?

- Measures that prevent banks from acting like casinos by eliminating loopholes that allowed risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated;

> Ahh . .  . "casinos . . . loopholes . . . risky and abusive . . . unnoticed and unregulated . . ." Right out of the pages of the big government, anti-market folks.  

Reasonable people can argue about the way in which the antiquated Federal deposit insurance pricing scheme effectively removes the typical market response to those institutions that take greater risks, but they wouldn't do it using those loaded terms.

- Strengthens enforcement of existing laws to stop Bernie Madoff type fraud by Wall Street executives so that American families and businesses are protected;

> And now, let's bring in Bernie Madoff.  In fact, Madoff--never has anyone been so aptly named--should be Exhibit A for the failure of regulators (and of common sense).  Again, we don't need 2300 pages and a sweeping overhaul when we should have objective fact-finding that results in disciplining those whose work fell short and in recommendations for narrowly tailored changes to address any systemic failures in the regulatory authorities.

But really Bernie gets dragged in here not because he had anything to do with the legislation--what he did was illegal from the get go; no new laws needed--but to have him stand next to "Wall Street executives" and make them look bad.  All in the name of protecting "American families and businesses."

Fraud is illegal.  I trust that fraud committed by anyone, from load officers to Wall Street execs, will be prosecuted.  Do we need 2,300 pages in order to do it?  Why aren't the laws we have adequate to bring cases?

- Lowers interchange fees for Main Street businesses so they can continue being economic engines in their communities and protect consumers who feel the impact of these increased fees, as much of the cost is often passed onto them.

> A great example of misguided political intervention in the market.  

Let's try this thought experiment: If there's intense competition in the market, why shouldn't the market clearing price remain?

Answer: Because then there would be no basis for politicians claiming that they're helping "consumers" and "Main Street."  And there would be no need for financial firms to invest even more in lobbyists and lobbying.  (The economic principle is called "rent seeking.")

In the end, this is sorely disappointing for five reasons:

(1) I was fooled.  (Always tough to admit.)
(2) The bill will raise costs and lower economic growth in the private sector, hurting all of us.
(3) The bill paves the way for much greater intrusion, and we'll soon have the kind of bureaucratic kudzu that we see in some other industries, where successful businesses are beholden to the regulators and politicians first and foremost, with shareholders and customers further down the line.
(4) Senator Brown thinks so little of those who supported him as to put out a statement like this one and believe that anyone would take it seriously.
(5) I thought we had an example of real change here in Massachusetts.

A final note: Anyone try to call his Senator Brown's office in DC?  It sounded like the Keystone Kops.  "What?  You actually want to talk with someone?  Huh?  All I need is your zip code.  Okay, we'll let me check if anyone . . .  " Finally, the receptionist comes back on and says, "You can talk to me."

Wonderful.  

More of the same.  

Another professional politician and his staff.


Thank you leewright, (0.00 / 0)
for the excellent analysis. (I myself stopped analyzing at "Frank-Dodd"!) Would disagree only with your regret at being "fooled". It was absolutely essential to elect Scott Brown, to jumpstart the revolution, inspire candidates for Congress all over the country. (I myself am never disillusioned because I have no illusions to dis. But blessed are they who resist cynicism.) We all did the right thing and Scott Brown is still better than the alternative, at least for now.

[ Parent ]
But now we have to answer the question (0.00 / 0)
If Scott Brown fooled us how can I believe XYZ candidate.  Unfortunate but already happening in conservative activist circles.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...


[ Parent ]
Then we must stop it now. (5.00 / 1)
Scott Brown didn't fool us. We are not victims. He made it pretty clear that he was going to be different from all those politicians who vote party lines and/or ideology. His self-image was clear; the independent thinker who votes the way the majority that elected him wants (which with this bill he assumes is for it). He violates his own premise only if he votes to the deficit, which is why he opposed the unemployment extension, or for new taxes. Never said he wouldn't vote for a bill to wreck the finance sector.
He has been a pragmatic politician for a long time. Not his fault if people saw what they wanted to see instead of what was there. Some of the newbies who are running because of his victory have the principles they are running on and there's no reason to assume they will violate them.

[ Parent ]
He "fooled us" on issues relative to the Federal Reserve. (0.00 / 0)
This isn't about what I wanted to see.  This isn't general, it's specific.

Quite frankly, his vote on this specific piece of legislation is completely deflating to me.  I don't really feel like writing more about it here and now.  I've already said a lot about this bill in the past and I'm feeling fatigue over it.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.


[ Parent ]
You Mean .. (0.00 / 0)
Are you refering to Brown's number one talking point about the supposed audit of the federal reserve which in this legislation that he is about to approve comes with a lengthy list of categories which are entirely "hands off, no questions asked".
Next time we get audited by the IRS I will show them to the cookie jar in my attack which they can then peruse at will as long as they dont ask me any other questions about anything else ... Yeah, we'll see how that kind of "audit" works out.

[ Parent ]
count the pencils (0.00 / 0)
Yeah.  Count the pencils and the chairs.  Avoid auditing the things that "Audit the Fed" is actually designed to do.

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

[ Parent ]
Great analysis leewright (0.00 / 0)
My only hope now is in Nov. enough "real" republicans are elected that they blunt, the Scott Brown vote.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, exactly (0.00 / 0)
MY hope is the all patriot activists think like you, and  just plan to work harder for their favorite congressional candidates. I'm starting with the Hudak event Sunday night!

[ Parent ]
How Could You Not Know By Now!? (5.00 / 2)
The lenders buckled to Clinton and the democratic party to make loans that everyone knew wouldn't be repaid. This extortional abuse of power was provided by the two amendments added to the Community Reinvestment Act. This information is well documented AND video of them bragging about it is STILL on Youtube...WHY the hell don't you know about all this by now, Scott??

You want the evidence and proof!? Here it is!

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton Share Blame for Subprime Mortgage Recession, Government Overshoot 9/22/08
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/...

Obama Owns Housing Bubble Crisis
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

Why the Mortgage Crisis Happened By M. Jay Wells from American Thinker                                                 http://www.americanthinker.com...

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown IBD:
http://www.rrpec.org/documents...

The Real Scandal How Feds Invited The Mortgage Mess by Stan Liebowitz
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02...

Gov't Dems Caused Housing Crisis, Including Obama
http://conservablogs.com/bluec...

CRA, ACORN, Democrats, Obama and the Housing Market Crisis http://conservablogs.com/bluec...
Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Confiscation by consent decree - Department of Justice extorts money from financial institutions ( short video clip ) http://findarticles.com/p/arti...

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'
http://articles.latimes.com/19...

Timeline of Events Fannie/Freddie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Fannie/Freddie history ( YouTube )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

House of Cards - Liberals Fueled Wall St. Woes
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09...  

Timeline Show Bush, McCain Warning Liberals of Financial Mess ( YouTube )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Who is Responsible - Meltdown - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Plausible deniability? by Dr. John Lott 9/22/08
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...  

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Planting Seeds of Disaster by Stanley Kurtz
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.
http://article.nationalreview....

"Obama, ACORN, and the Financial Meltdown (Stanley Kurtz on Fox-video embed)"
http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2...

Obama, Voter Fraud & Mortgage Meltdown
http://www.newsmax.com/politic...

Barack Obama's Involvement with ACORN Unearthed, Missing Article Recovered
http://www.clevelandleader.com...

Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are ( Feign ) Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Barney Frank Cried Racism And Look What Happened
http://activerain.com/blogsvie...

Barney Frank: Predatory Lender
http://online.wsj.com/article/...

Fannnie Mae's Patron Saint
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1...

Financial Markets Are in a Mess
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats In Their Own Words Covering Up
The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Scam That Caused Our Economic Crisis ( YouTube )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO Calling Obama and Dems The "Family" and "Conscience" of Fannie Mae ( YouTube )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest 10/3/08
http://www.foxnews.com/printer...  

Fannie Mae CEO At The Congressional Black Caucus video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

Democrats Defending Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac ( YouTube )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  

October 2004 video of a House hearing (very damning): http://www.rrpec.org/alerts.htm  Scroll down a bit on the page to view.

Whose Policies Led To The Credit Crisis? by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/200...  

The CRA and The Subprime Market
http://blogs.suntimes.com/home...

The Blame Game by Thomas Sowell  ( Article, not his new book of the same subject "The Housing Boom and Bust". )
http://townhall.com/columnists...

Racial Pattern Is Found in Boston Mortgages 9/1/89  By Allan R. Gold, Special to the New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...  

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae 9/11/03
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...  

New White House Fire for Fannie, Freddie 11/7/03
http://www.iii.co.uk/investmen...

NYT - Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending 9/30/99
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...  

Buying Subprime Securities
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Fed Study Finds Big Surge in `Non-Prime' Mortgages in '05
http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Community Reinvestment Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...  

Michelle Milton On CRA Loans
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/ac...


Thank you Winghunter! (0.00 / 0)
Everything in one place. What a resource RMG is!

[ Parent ]
Well, Yeah (5.00 / 1)
...but can you provide a link to back up your claims?

Bob Hedlund for Minority Leader.

[ Parent ]
Please Stop (5.00 / 1)
Enron, Tyco, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in fact the prodigy of over regulation. We had the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 but big corporate interests pushed for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and in its place we hade the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, FIRREA under Bush 1 increased oversight then throw in some more tinkering Community Reinvestment Act with Clinton and on and on and on we can go. History has proven however good the intentions are in regulations there is failure. Is there any sense in more controls and regulations to fix past controls and regulations? It has been proven many times, "A government that governs least governs best"

However well intended and regulations seem there are always unforeseen consequences as history has proven. Many have tried and failed thus you must ask what makes you so different? This is a wrong path to go down that many have tried, Scott Brown, you told us you were going to be a "Scott Brown Republican" and not like other failures that have taken this path, please keep your word.  


This is NOT what I worked for (0.00 / 0)
....when I helped on your campaign.  I don't expect my political positions to collide with those of my favored candidates all the time.  I do expect basic conservative principles to prevail.   Here,  they didn't.

I'm disgusted.  

Between this and how I'm going to have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Baker/Tisei, whatever hope I had last January has now withered back to the normal discouraging life of a Massachusetts Republican. Thanks.  


As far as I'm concerned (0.00 / 0)
you don't vote for a bill that's 70% bad because it's 30% good. There isn't anything that this administration or Democrat leadership can propose that should have the support of any Republican. Every single bill will have some sort of poison pill in it that ruins what be an otherwise acceptable bill. Quotas based on race or sex? That should be a "no" vote from the get-go. End of story. Come back with something else. Quotas? And the cop out that a follow-up bill will fix things? Please. Can you say "Sucker"?

Why is President Obama's Justice Dept. running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and possibly MS-13 too?

Karl (TLC)Weld


I love ya Scott but.... (0.00 / 0)
This should have been sent back to the kitchen. You had success altering it for the better but it still isn't acceptable and if the Wall Street Journal column is correct, this begins to eliminate small banks many citizens prefer.

To hell with Dodd's "legacy" legislation.

This bill is a creation of Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Congresman Barney Frank (D-MA4), the #1 and #3 "most corrupt politicians in Washington" according to Judicial Watch.

Listen to me on 1420 AM New Bedford from 2-6 PM or over the internet at www.wbsm.com from 2-6 PM. You can also go to my blog at www.kenpittman.com


Defend it all you want Brown... (0.00 / 0)
but you've lost our support!  If we would have known we were voting for Coakley Lite on that cold January 19, 2009, we would have stayed home.  We didn't send you to Washington to vote for socialist bills to later have to listen to your groundless BS excuses for having done so.  We sent you there to stop the Obama Socialist Express!  You campaigned as a conservative.  You lied!!!  

Why would you have stayed home? (0.00 / 0)
Why not vote for Joe Kennedy instead?

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
We do not need a buffer, a negotiator, a mitigater. (0.00 / 0)
What we need is for Brown to stop Obama.  Period.  Brown shouldn't be in there trying to twist a socialist bill into a slightly less socialist bill.  We need him saying "Hell No!"  Instead, he's in there trying to save all sides.  But, what he's ultimately doing is moving the ball closer to the socialist goal line.  When I went to the polls on January 19th, I voted for what I thought was a conservative.  I have little proof, though, that it wasn't joe kennedy I helped send to Washington.  The Massachusetts GOP better listen up here:  We can't trust  self-identified Republicans to do what they lead us to believe they'll do while on their campaign trail.  We were fooled by Scott Brown.  Either you, Massachusetts GOP, put Brown on a short leash or watch a far fewer number of us show up for any Republican in the future.  

[ Parent ]
Not that Joe Kennedy. (0.00 / 0)
Joe Kennedy the libertarian.  He would have basically voted against anything.  Warned everyone that Brown's record wasn't the kind of a fiscal conservative that people here seem to have wanted.  Did you not realize that he was running?

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


[ Parent ]
I remember long ago when Scott Brown said things like..... (0.00 / 0)
"I am a free enterprise advocate" and "I have been a fiscal watchdog fighting bigger government" and other such things.  Gosh, how I long for the good old days of LAST YEAR.  I guess guys always say things they don't mean when they are dating, but the story changes once they're married.

Scott, if what you say about making a promise to review every piece of legislation is true, and from this you could not discern that this legislation is yet another big government intrusion into our economy and private business practices - then you are not sufficiently capable of representing me or anyone else in government.

Make note Senator Brown - One very important reason that John McCain lost the election was because he had too many pieces of legislation that had both his name and some screaming ass liberal's name on it.  Shall I remind you of the Kennedy McCain immigration bill, McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill, etc.

If you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.


Too little too late senator (0.00 / 0)
First off Scott, that any bill aimed at "reform" is engineered by the architects of the current disaster is reason enough to steer clear of it. This bill does nothing to address the FannieMac FreddieMac issue and is therefore not reform. Further, I understand there is a diversity provisions in this bill.
A diversity provision?
How is that supposed to address reform, whatever that means?
It has been stated implementation of this bill will cost 19 billion dollars.
Where is that money coming from?

True reform would be the government admitting it has no ability or skills to regulate the financial industry it meddled in to begin with.
True reform would be the government reminding people they are responsible for their financial well being, not the government confiscating neighbor's income on their behalf.

Hopefully, enough solid conservatives will be elected in November to help set you in the correct direction.


Brown's Vote On Financial Reform (0.00 / 0)
I listened to Brown's comments on the Jay Severin Show and have carefully read his comments. I worked in his campaign, sent several hundred e-mails in support of his candidacy, made a financial contribution, and voted for him. To say I'm disappointed in Senator Brown is a big understatement.

I find it extraordinary that he is missing some obvious fundamentals. 1. The bill continues to extend the power of the Obama Administration which is certainly bad for the country. 2. With the expected changes in the Congress that will bring "allies" into the House and Senate, why in the world is Scott buddying-up with the likes of Kerry, Frank, and Dodd? 3. This bill is clearly bad for small business and for community banks, and subsequently a recovery.

Scott Brown ran on a platform that advocated smaller government, less regulation, reduced government spending and
common sense. I've heard it from him personally and publicly.

Has he so quickly forgotten that among the 1.2 million votes he received, were thousands of people like me that voted for him because he professed to be against the statists in Washington. He is seemingly dismissing the Tea Party people, of which I am not one, and appears cavalier
toward the Independents that carried him in.

In the minds of many, Scott Brown has gone from a "hero" to a "better than Martha" senator in six short months.

I hope his people read RMG. He still has time to change his mind.


But Not By Much .. (0.00 / 0)
Scott Brown has gone from a "hero" to a "better than Martha" senator in six short months

I would edit that to say "Scott Brown has gone from a "hero" to a "better than Martha" BUT NOT BY MUCH senator in six short months


[ Parent ]
Tax increase in the bill? (0.00 / 0)
"Senator Scott Brown" writes:

Other helpful provisions in the legislation include:...

But nowhere in the preceding text are any "helpful provisions" described.

Senator Scott Brown opposes the "bank tax" but not the tax on investment transactions -- taxes that will hit every investor, including pension funds, managers, and every individual who fuels real economic recovery through investment.

I did not support Brown in his primary bid, am not surprised by his performance, and if given a better choice (i.e. a fiscal conservative) will not vote for him again unless his voting pattern changes.

In other circumstances, it is reasonable to accept compromises. But for these reasons, I do not support a compromise to further extension of government power:

- Over 40% of Americans pay no federal income tax
- Public salaries and benefits outpace the revenue generated from taxes on private wealth
- Government has taken no action to reduce its own spending or its policies that increase dependency on welfare programs

There is still time to not make this mistake, Senator. Broaden your circles. Listen to your constituents, not your cohort.


Brown on the radio (0.00 / 0)
Brown will be on
AM 1030
at 8 PM tonight (Nightside with Dan Rea) to explain his vote.

Two words. (0.00 / 0)
Carla Howell.

She tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/di...

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)


Two different words (0.00 / 0)
Martha Coakley.

[ Parent ]
That's right Patrick, Carla Howell was waaaaaaay out ahead of everyone, but sadly no one listened. (0.00 / 0)
I especially remember David Whelan's post

Dear Carla:
Go away and go away real fast

I wanted to speak up for Carla but was too afraid.  You guys all know how David can be . . . .  

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...


[ Parent ]
Dodd-Frank misses the point (0.00 / 0)
The ultimate cause of the real estate bubble is the Fed keeping interest rates too low for too long.  Since the 80s, we've had a consistent policy of setting interest rates -- eventually formulated as the Taylor Rule.  We deviated from that rule beginning in 2001,
according to John Taylor,
the man who invented the Taylor rule.

As long as we have a loose macroeconomic policy, market bubbles will continue to happen.  When excessively "stimulated," the market will show it's true creativity in finding new ways to drive us off a cliff.  It's folly to believe we can thwart this with new regulations and bureaucracies.

I would love to see Senator Brown take a leadership role on this common sense issue.


Update: The Senator's form letter after the vote (0.00 / 0)
Discussed in this post: http://www.redmassgroup.com/us...

sony universal remote control (0.00 / 0)

sony universal remote control

sony universal remote control

sony universal remote control  


Advertisement

Adverstise here for as low as $60 per week.





Local Feeds 

Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox