On 7/17/10 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born


The GOP'ers don't want any sort of reform. They like the way it is, with
everyone except the rich getting raped...by the rich.

It's time for heads on pikes.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born

Well, you're the one who's always saying it depends on the regs and they
aren't written yet. Would you have preferred she not even try?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 21:59:45 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/17/10 9:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:34:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I guess a consumer protection arm of the Fed isn't a good idea. I guess
we
should just let Wall Street run amok.

The real question is whether this "Consumer Protection" agency will be
another toothless Brooksley Born type bondoggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born


The GOP'ers don't want any sort of reform. They like the way it is, with
everyone except the rich getting raped...by the rich.

It's time for heads on pikes.

That may be an oversimplification of a complex issue and using a broad
brush on a far from unified party.

Yes it may be an oversimplification, but it's pretty close to the truth.