Get E-Mail Updates

Finance Reform a Historic Accomplishment

Last evening, the U.S. Senate passed a financial regulatory reform bill by a 59-39 vote, including four Republicans. While the legislation still contains some weaknesses (two liberal Democrats voted against it for that reason), it is nonetheless a historic accomplishment -- the strongest such legislation since Franklin Roosevelt. Because of the excesses that led to the current Great Recession, in which millions of Americans lost their homes and jobs, the pendulum has once again swung from an era of an "anything goes" mentality to more careful public oversight and government regulation. As the legislation now goes to a House-Senate conference committee, we must remain vigilant to protect the gains that were made.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

There were principles that -- from a moral and even religious viewpoint -- guided our analysis of this legislation. Each of these moral principles is incorporated into the new bill.

The bill provides greater transparency and accountability in financial markets and instruments. The now infamous high-risk and questionable "derivatives" will have to be traded on public exchanges, not in backroom deals. There is even a provision that, if maintained, would likely ban banks from trading derivatives.

Consumer protection is increased through the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Although the bureau will be in the Federal Reserve, it will have an independent director and dedicated funding. This bureau will have the power to create and enforce regulations to oversee mortgages, credit cards, and other lending practices in order to protect people from fraudulent, misleading, and abusive practices.

Failing banks will now be subject to being taken over and shut down by the government, with shareholders and unsecured creditors taking the losses rather than bailouts at taxpayer expense. A new regulatory council can recommend limits to the risks taken by banks through their increasing capital to cover potential losses.

These principles -- clarity, transparency, accountability, and protecting the common good against private greed -- now give a stronger voice to Main Street in facing Wall Street. And that's an accomplishment we should applaud.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: justintime

05-23-2010 @ 5:25pm

First, prove yourself right.

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Sliced and diced ? so he doest say he a marxist ? He believes in redistribution of wealth and not his its yours ! Its called blind faith !

by: SamHamilton

05-23-2010 @ 7:24pm

Yeah, I see what you mean. When the Democratic Congress passes something, you generally get the same thing from Jim or his writer. Essentially..."while the bill's not perfect, it contains a number of good things that, broadly speaking, compare favorably with broad moral precepts contained in the Bible, and since it's an important initiative of the Democrats, here's an endorsement of it. Oh yeah, and it's historic."

by: SamHamilton

05-23-2010 @ 7:24pm

Yeah, I see what you mean. When the Democratic Congress passes something, you generally get the same thing from Jim or his writer. Essentially..."while the bill's not perfect, it contains a number of good things that, broadly speaking, compare favorably with broad moral precepts contained in the Bible, and since it's an important initiative of the Democrats, here's an endorsement of it. Oh yeah, and it's historic."

by: duhsciple

05-24-2010 @ 8:18pm

If you don't watch the full clip, then I will be unable to have a conversation with you. God bless.

by: B_Barrett

05-24-2010 @ 12:12am

The term Marxist applies to those who believe in the tenets of socialism as laid out by Karl Marx; a standard neither his nor Mao's communism actually lived up to. We are in no danger of "going Marxist" in that we love our capitalism. There is nobody in a position of power saying we should give all the fruits of our labor to the state to have it redistributed based upon merit. We have a whole lot more Ayn Rand here. True Marxists are an even more fractious sliver of America than they were during the McCarthy witch-hunts.

by: B_Barrett

05-24-2010 @ 12:12am

The term Marxist applies to those who believe in the tenets of socialism as laid out by Karl Marx; a standard neither his nor Mao's communism actually lived up to. We are in no danger of "going Marxist" in that we love our capitalism. There is nobody in a position of power saying we should give all the fruits of our labor to the state to have it redistributed based upon merit. We have a whole lot more Ayn Rand here. True Marxists are an even more fractious sliver of America than they were during the McCarthy witch-hunts.

by: Patricia

05-24-2010 @ 2:29pm

Ahhhh...NOW I understand - just heard on NPR about the "government takeover of the internet" commercials on TV and radio, sponsored by corporations, of course. People heard it, so it must be true, right?

But, really -

DID the government take over the banks? No. The government gave them a pile of money, but it didn't take them over.

DID the government take over the insurance companies? No. The government provided them with millions of new, paying customers in return for not denying insurance, but they didn't take them over.

Did the government take over the car companies? No. Again, the government gave IT (it was only GM -not "all" the companies) a pile of money, but it didn't take it over.

By no stretch of the imagination could one remotely truthfully say any of the examples listed in the ad were government "takeovers."

And, IS the government trying to take over the internet? Again, No.

The inability of so many of my fellow citizens and Christian brothers and sisters to differentiate a lie from the truth is extremely saddening and frustrating at times.

by: Patricia

05-24-2010 @ 2:29pm

Ahhhh...NOW I understand - just heard on NPR about the "government takeover of the internet" commercials on TV and radio, sponsored by corporations, of course. People heard it, so it must be true, right?

But, really -

DID the government take over the banks? No. The government gave them a pile of money, but it didn't take them over.

DID the government take over the insurance companies? No. The government provided them with millions of new, paying customers in return for not denying insurance, but they didn't take them over.

Did the government take over the car companies? No. Again, the government gave IT (it was only GM -not "all" the companies) a pile of money, but it didn't take it over.

By no stretch of the imagination could one remotely truthfully say any of the examples listed in the ad were government "takeovers."

And, IS the government trying to take over the internet? Again, No.

The inability of so many of my fellow citizens and Christian brothers and sisters to differentiate a lie from the truth is extremely saddening and frustrating at times.

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:08pm

saul alinsky ??? commie ????

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:08pm

saul alinsky ??? commie ????

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:12pm

I watch everyday and see we are heading for the end of America as a great country thanks to blind fools like you ! Obama and Jim Wallis are marxist prove me wrong Justintime ?

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:12pm

I watch everyday and see we are heading for the end of America as a great country thanks to blind fools like you ! Obama and Jim Wallis are marxist prove me wrong Justintime ?

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Sliced and diced ? so he doest say he a marxist ? He believes in redistribution of wealth and not his its yours ! Its called blind faith !

by: Twana Jones

05-24-2010 @ 4:15pm

Sliced and diced ? so he doest say he a marxist ? He believes in redistribution of wealth and not his its yours ! Its called blind faith !

by: duhsciple

05-24-2010 @ 8:18pm

If you don't watch the full clip, then I will be unable to have a conversation with you. God bless.

by: duhsciple

05-24-2010 @ 8:18pm

If you don't watch the full clip, then I will be unable to have a conversation with you. God bless.

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:35pm

considering jim never had a real job since hes a communist traitor what would he know about reform anything other then reforming america into a third world nation !!

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:37pm

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me , wall street owns the goverment not just congress including your churches soon too .

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:35pm

considering jim never had a real job since hes a communist traitor what would he know about reform anything other then reforming america into a third world nation !!

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:37pm

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me , wall street owns the goverment not just congress including your churches soon too .

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 1:13am

I'm pretty sure that accusing someone of being a "communist traitor" who "never had a real job", and accusing someone of attempting to "reform america into a third world nation" - all without any supporting evidence whatsoever - violates #1 and #3 of the code of conduct - flag.

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 1:13am

I'm pretty sure that accusing someone of being a "communist traitor" who "never had a real job", and accusing someone of attempting to "reform america into a third world nation" - all without any supporting evidence whatsoever - violates #1 and #3 of the code of conduct - flag.

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:23am

Under financial overhaul, FTC could gain enforcement power over Internet http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:25am

thats just 1 and im sure theres plenty hidden treasures except on this site which is pretty much in the pocket of obama youll have to look for your self .

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:23am

Under financial overhaul, FTC could gain enforcement power over Internet http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:25am

thats just 1 and im sure theres plenty hidden treasures except on this site which is pretty much in the pocket of obama youll have to look for your self .

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:46am

This article says this new enforcement power was included in the House bill but not the Senate bill that Jim wrote about. It still remains to be seen whether or not it will be in the final bill.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if the FTC were to "issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits?" This is the only specific regulatory issue the article alleges the FTC might address, but perhaps there are others.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:41am

What are you talking about? This type of comment serves no purpose. If you want to continue to post here, please stop with the name-calling and hyperbole.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:49am

Do you know if the bill will remove the incentive for banks to take risky positions with their depositors' money or will it set up some sort of insurance for too-big-to-fail institutions?

This is the main issue I'm worried about. If we continue to provide some sort of bailout opportunity to banks who take crazy risks, they'll continue to do it because they know they'll be safe.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:52am

I'm not sure Twana has the whole story here, but "Wall Street" doesn't control the internet. You won't catch me defending the actions of the big banks, but let's not use the term "Wall Street" to refer to every latest boogie man out there.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-22-2010 @ 3:17pm

Doesn't read like Jim to me.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: justintime

05-21-2010 @ 7:26pm

I agree with Jim and applaud the passage of the bill - it has a lot of good things in there.
BUT I also agree with my Senator, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) that the bill does NOT address the real causes of the meltdown:

No regulation of derivatives trading.
No protection against the 'too big to fail' dilemma.
No separation of banks and investment firms.

She and Russ Feingold [D-WI] voted against the bill.
Wall Street still owns Congress.

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:35pm

considering jim never had a real job since hes a communist traitor what would he know about reform anything other then reforming america into a third world nation !!

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:35pm

considering jim never had a real job since hes a communist traitor what would he know about reform anything other then reforming america into a third world nation !!

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:37pm

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me , wall street owns the goverment not just congress including your churches soon too .

by: Twana Jones

05-21-2010 @ 11:37pm

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me , wall street owns the goverment not just congress including your churches soon too .

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 1:13am

I'm pretty sure that accusing someone of being a "communist traitor" who "never had a real job", and accusing someone of attempting to "reform america into a third world nation" - all without any supporting evidence whatsoever - violates #1 and #3 of the code of conduct - flag.

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 1:13am

I'm pretty sure that accusing someone of being a "communist traitor" who "never had a real job", and accusing someone of attempting to "reform america into a third world nation" - all without any supporting evidence whatsoever - violates #1 and #3 of the code of conduct - flag.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:56am

what other things are hidden in this bill is what scares the heck out of me

Tell us more about the scary things hidden in the bill.

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:07am

oh im sorry i meant marxist which to me is the same as a communist , listen for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ku4lSm17Vc

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:11am

and prove to me what he has done as far as what i consider a real job , and marxisim will change this into a 3rd world nation which at the rate we are going with the current adminisrtation shouldnt take too long . forgive me for breaking your code of conduct but first prove me wrong ,

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:23am

Under financial overhaul, FTC could gain enforcement power over Internet http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:23am

Under financial overhaul, FTC could gain enforcement power over Internet http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:25am

thats just 1 and im sure theres plenty hidden treasures except on this site which is pretty much in the pocket of obama youll have to look for your self .

by: Twana Jones

05-22-2010 @ 3:25am

thats just 1 and im sure theres plenty hidden treasures except on this site which is pretty much in the pocket of obama youll have to look for your self .

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: Patricia

05-22-2010 @ 4:14am

Yes, that is certainly scary...the FTC protecting the privacy and rights of internet users against the corporate/advertising/internet provider interests that seek to gather private information without permission and use it for their own advantage :).

Are you SURE you're against wall street controlling our churches? Because you've certainly come down in favor of wall street controlling the internet!

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:41am

What are you talking about? This type of comment serves no purpose. If you want to continue to post here, please stop with the name-calling and hyperbole.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:41am

What are you talking about? This type of comment serves no purpose. If you want to continue to post here, please stop with the name-calling and hyperbole.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:41am

What are you talking about? This type of comment serves no purpose. If you want to continue to post here, please stop with the name-calling and hyperbole.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:46am

This article says this new enforcement power was included in the House bill but not the Senate bill that Jim wrote about. It still remains to be seen whether or not it will be in the final bill.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if the FTC were to "issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits?" This is the only specific regulatory issue the article alleges the FTC might address, but perhaps there are others.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:46am

This article says this new enforcement power was included in the House bill but not the Senate bill that Jim wrote about. It still remains to be seen whether or not it will be in the final bill.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if the FTC were to "issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits?" This is the only specific regulatory issue the article alleges the FTC might address, but perhaps there are others.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:46am

This article says this new enforcement power was included in the House bill but not the Senate bill that Jim wrote about. It still remains to be seen whether or not it will be in the final bill.

Do you think it would be a bad thing if the FTC were to "issue rules on privacy that would curtail an advertiser's ability to collect personal data on consumers' Web habits?" This is the only specific regulatory issue the article alleges the FTC might address, but perhaps there are others.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:49am

Do you know if the bill will remove the incentive for banks to take risky positions with their depositors' money or will it set up some sort of insurance for too-big-to-fail institutions?

This is the main issue I'm worried about. If we continue to provide some sort of bailout opportunity to banks who take crazy risks, they'll continue to do it because they know they'll be safe.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:49am

Do you know if the bill will remove the incentive for banks to take risky positions with their depositors' money or will it set up some sort of insurance for too-big-to-fail institutions?

This is the main issue I'm worried about. If we continue to provide some sort of bailout opportunity to banks who take crazy risks, they'll continue to do it because they know they'll be safe.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:49am

Do you know if the bill will remove the incentive for banks to take risky positions with their depositors' money or will it set up some sort of insurance for too-big-to-fail institutions?

This is the main issue I'm worried about. If we continue to provide some sort of bailout opportunity to banks who take crazy risks, they'll continue to do it because they know they'll be safe.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:52am

I'm not sure Twana has the whole story here, but "Wall Street" doesn't control the internet. You won't catch me defending the actions of the big banks, but let's not use the term "Wall Street" to refer to every latest boogie man out there.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:52am

I'm not sure Twana has the whole story here, but "Wall Street" doesn't control the internet. You won't catch me defending the actions of the big banks, but let's not use the term "Wall Street" to refer to every latest boogie man out there.

by: SamHamilton

05-22-2010 @ 11:52am

I'm not sure Twana has the whole story here, but "Wall Street" doesn't control the internet. You won't catch me defending the actions of the big banks, but let's not use the term "Wall Street" to refer to every latest boogie man out there.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:42pm

The House financial reform bill (passed in December of 2009) is stronger than the Senate bill on the issue you raise.
See: http://www.cnbc.com/id/34378608/What_s_In_the_H...

The two bills will now have to be reconciled before sending to the President to be signed into law.
Hopefully the reconciliation process will strengthen the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:42pm

The House financial reform bill (passed in December of 2009) is stronger than the Senate bill on the issue you raise.
See: http://www.cnbc.com/id/34378608/What_s_In_the_H...

The two bills will now have to be reconciled before sending to the President to be signed into law.
Hopefully the reconciliation process will strengthen the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:42pm

The House financial reform bill (passed in December of 2009) is stronger than the Senate bill on the issue you raise.
See: http://www.cnbc.com/id/34378608/What_s_In_the_H...

The two bills will now have to be reconciled before sending to the President to be signed into law.
Hopefully the reconciliation process will strengthen the bill.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:52pm

Dear Twana,Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story you linked:

The Federal Trade Commission could become a more powerful watchdog for Internet users under a little-known provision in financial overhaul legislation that would expand the agency's ability to create rules.
An emboldened FTC would stand in stark contrast to a besieged Federal Communications Commission, whose ability to oversee broadband providers has been cast into doubt after a federal court ruled last month that the agency lacked the ability to punish Comcast for violating open-Internet guidelines.
The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers.

Why would you be afraid of these provisions, Twana?
Tell us in your own words please.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:52pm

Dear Twana,Here's an excerpt from the Washington Post story you linked:

The Federal Trade Commission could become a more powerful watchdog for Internet users under a little-known provision in financial overhaul legislation that would expand the agency's ability to create rules.
An emboldened FTC would stand in stark contrast to a besieged Federal Communications Commission, whose ability to oversee broadband providers has been cast into doubt after a federal court ruled last month that the agency lacked the ability to punish Comcast for violating open-Internet guidelines.
The version of regulatory overhaul legislation passed by the House would allow the FTC to issue rules on a fast track and permit the agency to impose civil penalties on companies that hurt consumers.

Why would you be afraid of these provisions, Twana?
Tell us in your own words please.

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:58pm

Can you write a complete sentence, containing a subject and a predicate, with a capital at the beginning and a period at the end?

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:58pm

Can you write a complete sentence, containing a subject and a predicate, with a capital at the beginning and a period at the end?

by: justintime

05-22-2010 @ 2:58pm

Can you write a complete sentence, containing a subject and a predicate, with a capital at the beginning and a period at the end?

by: letjusticerolldown

05-22-2010 @ 3:17pm

Doesn't read like Jim to me.

by: letjusticerolldown

05-22-2010 @ 3:17pm

Doesn't read like Jim to me.