Next Up: Financial Reform

I haven’t had time to write as much about the pre-skirmish on financial reform as I’d like, but much of what I’d like to say is summed up in “Why’s Sen. McConnell trashing Wall Street regulation bill?” by David Lightman and Halimah Abdullah of McClatchy Newspapers. See also “Whose Side Are They On?” in today’s New York Times.

Paul Krugman calls the Goldman Sachs/ The Producers failed securities scam “looting.” See also libertarianism exposed.

14 thoughts on “Next Up: Financial Reform

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Mahablog » Next Up: Financial Reform --

  2. Just how popular is McConnell in his home district? Can’t they see that he is averse to the interests of the majority there? He is proposing nothing that would promote transparency or honest dealing. On NPR a few days ago, there was a discussion of the proposal to reform finances just a little that made clear that the Republican objections were baseless at best and for sale quite obviously. And NPR proudly touts itself as a MSM outlet. If even they can say it, must we now wait till Glenn and Rush agree before the Tea crew will even think about it?

  3. Actually I have 2 names for the other party.

    1. The GOPranos

    2. The RepubliKLAN Party.

    and I call their rabble the Lynching party.

  4. I used the listen to NPR until they turned into

    National Propaganda for the RepubliKLAN party

  5. Of course the banks in his home state do not want to be regulated. The banks all over this country do not want to be regulated. They definitely need to be regulated. This is pure obsturctionism. Sorry abo0ut spelling.

  6. I used the listen to NPR until they turned into National Propaganda for the RepubliKLAN party

    You might want to check the tuner on your radio. You must have it set on the AM band by mistake. As Bill Bush said, “There was a discussion… that made clear that the Republican objections were baseless at best and for sale quite obviously.” I heard the same discussion; it came barely short of calling McConnell a big fat liar with his pants on fire. There was no way it could be reasonably interpreted as pro-Repug propaganda.

  7. It will be interesting to see how the right wing noise machine shows that the ordinary “folks” are just as opposed to financial reform as they were to healthcare reform. Equating it with “permanent bailouts” is a good start. Will we see signs at the dimwitted teabagger rallies “get socialist government out of investment banking”, “Leave JP Morgan Chase alone”, Get your hands off my Goldman Sachs”. I’m beginning to FAUX news could sell unicorns to the dimwits that watch that channel, we’ll see.

  8. Thanks Joan. I listen to NPR on a regular basis. They can pride themselves on providing both sides of a stroy, but they do a better job of providing background and depth. Truuth has liberal bias and moer often than not, a satisfactory angle emerges from their reporting without the intention or design of slanting the news.

  9. Joan and Doug,
    I love you both, but you can’t compare NPR today to what it was 10 to 20+ years ago. They have been successfully infiltrated by the right, who claimed, just like they did with print and TV, that it was too Liberal.
    Is it better than 95% of what’s out there? Hell yes! But today’s NY Times, compared to 30+ years ago, is also a faded image of what it was. Better than the rest? Except for McClatchety, yes!
    Now, as for the WaPo… Well, I’ll just leave that alone. Espcecially their OpEd, with one or two exceptions.

    As for you Senator McConnell, baby, you’d better keep hoping that you don’t ever privatize fire department coverage because you wouldn’t be able to afford what going on with the 5-Alarm Fire going on in your pant’s, and it ain’t ’cause you’re hot, baby, it’s cause they’re on fire from lying.

  10. Gulag, I think the main problem has been one or two obsequious reporters during the Dubya years (*cough* Mara and Cokie *cough*) who should’ve been reassigned (or, in Cokie’s case, cut loose). But that’s a far cry from being “successfully infiltrated by the Right,” isn’t it?

    I think there’s also some confusion over the fact that, early in the Dubya years, one of Bush’s Rightie minions ended up in a position of importance in public broadcasting, and for a time managed to change the tone somewhat at both NPR and PBS. But that guy’s tenure was short and he’s been gone for a few years, and currently I hear only the type of reporting Doug describes. Presenting “both sides of the story” has never meant, to me, that the presenter is a propagandist; it has always meant the opposite.

    I’ve been listening to NPR news pretty much 7 days a week for about 25 years, and I’ve noticed the subtle shifts back and forth, but I think you need to tune in again and see if your characterization is correct. Personally, I see no evidence for it. Just sayin, of course!

  11. NPR seems to have drifted into ‘fair and balanced’ territory where both sides of an issue are aired. The assumption is that somewhere in the middle of the two sides lies the truth. Pure nonsense. If I poll the incomes of 19 homeless people plus Bill Gates and derive an ‘average’ income for the group, no way in the world will I arrive at a figure that has any relevance.

Comments are closed.