Republicans unveil their Financial Regulatory Reform Package

I've been scanning republican senator web sites and listening to CSPAN all day trying to understand where the disconnect is between the parties over this issue. I actually wrote to both of my senators asking them for their specific stand on financial reform this morning because their web sites didn't include it. While there isn't dispute over roughly 80% of the bill (it was created by both parties in the first place), the sticking points are in some of the details. Thanks for posting this link - it's helped me understand where the differences are.

I don't think that Freddie and Fannie is the primary sticking point. Kit Bond (R-MO) did get on CSPAN today to talk about what he disagreed with and his proposals and never once mentioned Freddie/Fannie. He was more concerned about not putting any additional over site to small banks and other points. After the filibuster vote this morning, I'll give him a lot of credit for speaking up and clarifying his position. And another fyi - neither of the Kansas senator websites mentioned Frannie/Freddie either. I don't doubt that it is an issue with them, just not the primary issue.

I really wanted to see the debate between the parties, rather than depending on media pundits putting spin on the issues. This is such a tremendously huge issue that shouldn't be discussed behind closed doors - it only confirms people's mistrust in the federal government. People need to understand what is being proposed and how it will affect them. I've heard too much music playing on CSPAN today - makes me wonder if anyone is working in D.C. today.

Just for the record, I agree with the general gist of the bill now, but there are good points brought up by the republicans, such as not having additional over site to small banks. I am a moderate after all (I know, hard to believe).

But there is one major provision that both parties failed to include: that politicians are no longer allowed to accept campaign contributions from any financial institution in the future. Wouldn't that make all of this a bit more honest?

I know you're sensitive about Reid, but I can't fault him for trying to ram this bill through. Everything that I've read about it supports that both parties have been involved all along and with the anger by the public over Wall Street, what would be the reason to hold off public debate on its content? He didn't ask for a vote, just a public debate.

I just saw that McConnell has agreed to lift the filibuster as both parties have agreed to some of the proposed changes and the rest will be debated in the senate. The music just stopped on CSPAN. I REALLY want to see the debate.

The policies that led to the melt down have been in the works for many, many years and (IMO) we can point at both sides of the aisle for why it occurred. With that said, I don't think that anyone is smart enough right now to compose a bill that will fix all of the problems, and this can only be a first step in putting us back on a path where the citizens in our nation are protected from financial scams. You have to start somewhere.