Bipartisan House Gives In To Wall Street, Passes Dodd-Frank Rollback Drafted By Citigroup Lobbyists

[Purveyor]

A bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives rolled back one of the key elements of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law passed in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown.

The House voted 292-122 to pass Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, which repeals a provision in the law that required big banks to move some derivatives trading into separate units that aren’t backed by the government’s insurance fund.

The vote followed months of heavy lobbying by Wall Street banks, and The New York Times reviewed emails that showed Citigroup lobbyists drafted at least 70 of the House bill’s 85 lines.

In addition, a MapLight analysis showed Citigroup had showered House members who voted for the bill with campaign cash in the three years since Dodd-Frank was passed.

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT), has received more than $66,000 from the bank, more than any other House member, and the bill’s co-sponsors received an average of 16.8 times more money from Citigroup than other House members.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/01/bipartisan-house-gives-in-to-wall-street-and-passes-dodd-frank-rollback-drafted-by-citigroup-lobbyists/

[Autumn]

1. But of course. I regret ever voting for Citigroup.

They only write laws the are of benefit to them.

[Thucydides]

2. Whats the word I am looking for here, oh yes now it comes to me......

Plutocrats!

[djean111]

3. Mmmmmmm....our government at work!

I am starting to think it might be better if they had even more days off.

[QuestForSense]

4. Alrighty then!

Let move on to the TPP.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

5. Get Money Out!

How on earth to we get back to that argument that I believe more than 60% of Americans would heartily support? Money corrupts.

[L0oniX]

42. Move your money to a credit union.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

43. Some is in a credit union. Divsersify! That's the American Way!

But by all means get money out of politics!

[boomersense]

6. Prepare for the takeover.................nt

ddddddddd

[hootinholler]

7. The roll call

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll569.xml

Mine is on the wrong side of this.

[pampango]

17. "Bipartisan House"? - 99% of repubs voted for it; 2/3 of Democrats voted against.

Guess it depends on how you want to define "bipartisan".

[redqueen]

18. Gotta love that false balance.

Then again we really do need better (read non-corporate-owned) dems, but ... easier said than done.

[Jim Lane]

27. "Bipartisan" = not a straight party-line vote, but having significant support from each party

At least, that's how I'd define it. Regrettably, this vote qualifies as bipartisan. I'm particularly disappointed to see that my former Representative, Carolyn Maloney, voted for it. She's usually a reliable progressive vote. Her district, on the East Side of Manhattan, is home to quite a few 1%ers and financial-industry people, and I assume that Citibank and its ilk went all-out in mobilizing constituent pressure on her.

[pampango]

36. To me it means a majority of both parties. In this case, Democrats voted to defeat the bill although

too many voted in favor of it. I don't call 99% of one party voting to pass and a majority of the other voting to defeat, a "bipartisan" vote. If one repub had voted for the ACA that would not have qualified it as a "bipartisan" vote in favor of it.

[Mass]

32. When Hoyer, Clyburn, and DWS vote YES and Pelosi and Israel do not vote at all, this poses questions

[Scuba]

33. +1

[Samantha]

35. I was focusing on Hoyer and Pelosi as well

Didn't notice Clyburn. Hoyer is my representative. Everyone around me loves him, he is such a gentleman, but I think he is too far right for my taste.

Sam

[sabrina 1]

38. Well, here's how these Wall St written bills pass.

The Repubs can be counted on when needed to do what Wall St. tells them. Then all that is needed a number of Dems, usually they know how many they need, to get it passed. We have enough Corporate Dems now in the party to make sure that Wall St always gets what it wants.

Then those who vote for something unpopular with Dems, will be allowed to vote for something that doesn't adversely affect Wall St, but is popular with Dems, to save their seats in Congress which used to confuse people. But not any more.

Lots of excuses are made each time this happens, but we are told we cannot elect Progressives, so we must continue to support these Corporate Dems who keep the status quo going no matter how the people vote against it.

[pampango]

40. In this case Wall Street did not "need" any Democratic votes. 222 repubs were more than enough.

The 1/3 of House Democrats who voted for this bill did not do so because they were "needed". It is worse than that. Their arms were not twisted behind their backs to provide a narrow margin of victory for Wall Street. They did it because they wanted to.

I am glad to see that 2/3 of Democrats in the House voted against this corporate bill.

[woo me with science]

49. As many "Dems" as are needed to ensure the desired corporate outcome

will vote for the desired outcome. We know this con game well by now.

The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do.

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:
....
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. ...

[littlewolf]

21. so is mine :< nt

[Laelth]

26. Mine also. n/t

-Laelth

[WillyT]

8. Well Then... THIS Should Help With The 2014 GOTV...

[chuckstevens]

9. To the Barricades!

If Citigroup had been around in 1789, I'm sure they would have had rooms at Versailles and 24 hour a day access to Louis the 16th!

Maybe if the Democrats fought against this type of Bull Shit they would start sweeping election. But Oh No, we can't offend our lords and masters. DISGUSTING!

[2naSalit]

10. Maybe it's tme to

nationalize the banks and be done with them. It's our money they have confiscated anyway, might as well take it back.

[Unknown Beatle]

11. Well Shit!

It's becoming more obvious with each passing day who congress works for, both houses.

Fuck! Is it that corrupted that they would do that in broad daylight for everyone to see? Yes, and the don't give a fuck either. Imagine that, cockroaches not hiding in the light. It's time to stomp them out.

[Nevernose]

12. Is there a list somewhere?

I realize it'll be a long list, but I suspect that I have some angry phone calls to make in the morning.

[hootinholler]

20. See reply 7

There's a link to the vote

[Nevernose]

34. Ha! I knew that fancy college education wouldn't go to waste!

N/t

[cantbeserious]

13. The Oligarchs, Billionaires And Millionaires Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

eom

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. Yes

and we are kept busy fighting each other over wedge issues, things the PTB's can care less about. They really do have us where they want us.

[quakerboy]

14. Now to the senate!

70 Democrats for it, 3 republicans against it. Nearly half of the Democrats voted for this.

Forgive me if I have the numbers wrong, but I believe that means that it would have easily sailed through if Democrats had their 2008 majority back.

Actually, looking further, if you maintained proportions, it would also have passed in FDR's 1934 Democratic house majority.

In fact, there's only been one congress in US history that would have failed to pass it, FDR's 1936 congress. And even then, it only fails by 3 votes.

Bipartisan! Progress!

[99Forever]

15. Hooray for ...

... for "bipartisan cooperation!"

Ain't it the greatest?

Tell me again about those evil Republicans and those wonderful, saintly Democrats.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Anyone know if this will pass the Senate - and if it does, will they have a veto proof majority?

[Maedhros]

22. Is there any reason to expect Obama to veto it if it does pass the Senate?

He has only used his veto power twice:

December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House.[35]

October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House.[36]

[Drunken Irishman]

28. Considering Obama opposes the bill, why not?

We'll see - but I doubt it passes the senate anyway.

[jsr]

19. What a heartwarming example of national unity

in the service of the 1%.

[littlewolf]

23. I only hope that the Senate will not even bring this to the floor. nt

[Wounded Bear]

24. I'm almost surprised, my Rep voted "nay"...

I pegged her as a corporate dem, but she's on the right side of this one.

DelBene, WA1.

[riverbendviewgal]

25. will obama and senate veto it?

the USA is becoming a very stupid country. banana republic.

I had a bus driver that discussed things with me and we were discussing Cuba and vacationing there. He said that before Castro there was such a divide of classes...People were either so rich or they were so poor and had no shoes or food under Baptista. He went after the revolution and it has been so much better. People are eating, have medical care and jobs. He was very adamant on that.

My friends have gone to cuba many times and they love it. The cuban people don't have zilllions of things....It is not a throwaway society. They may all not have the fanciest houses or newest cars but they are HEALTHY. and have access to hospitals and doctors.

Anyway I am off track.

I have come to the point that I just graze now...the NYT, Raw Story, DU...and MSNBC. CNN has become Fox lite and the others are so much puppets being pulled on the strings by the rich republicans.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

I feel so sad for you all.

[gussmith]

45. Yes, We Are Sinking

Not exactly your point, I know, but try Politico too. They can be objective.

[NRaleighLiberal]

29. this shit makes me sick...down the drain we continue to swirl....

[boomersense]

30. I'm not even certain everyone realizes how serious this is.........

If this law is eventually passed and approved, it makes our own bank deposits in a secondary position to derivatives. If there is another crash--and there will be--we will lose much of our savings to the derivative holders.

[Mass]

31. Strange roll call - Rangel and Blumenauer voted for it? WTF

Hardly blue dogs?

DWS Hoyer, and Clyburn as well voted for it too. Pelosi did not vote, nor did Israel

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll569.xml

I wonder why?

[raouldukelives]

37. Thanks to the best efforts of corporate lobbyists working on the behalf of shareholders everywhere.

Another grand victory for them. There is nothing they cant accomplish together.

[meow2u3]

39. Who elected Shittygroup?

And what gives them a license to bribe Congress?

[flobee1]

53. Money

and money


that is what elects people anymore.
your opinion vs a case full of cash-what do you think matters to these fuckers most?

[L0oniX]

41. Rep. Jim Hines (D-CT) ratfucker!

[gussmith]

44. Names

Let's be sure to know the names of the members of congress who voted for defeating any part of Dodd-Frank.

[blkmusclmachine]

47. Bi-partisanship You Can Believe In!

[City Lights]

48. Corporations rule the US.

[Dustlawyer]

50. Demand Publicly Funded Elections!

[City Lights]

51. A bipartisian "fuck you" to the people from Clowngress.

How nice!

[MisterP]

52. they'll just call it HinesGivesUCash, say "it's historic because it's the most historic thing ever,"

take a picture of a Bagger campaign button next to an anti-Glass-Steagall campaign button, accuse anyone demurring of being a Kochie, say it's a step toward nationalizing the banks, and that'll be that!

[woo me with science]

54. kick