Noted.

Hello, Whatever the new laws are, I would want them to make them strong enough so that no one ever again falls victim to mortgage fraud and then loses the home they have come to love. I don't know much about politics, but I believe in home ownership. I felt better when I was a home owner. I belonged somewhere. Now because of my GA experience, I can't even afford the least expensive rent. Eugenia Renskoff

Regulations in London, and Shanghai are generally weaker then the US. Let’s talk when the Asian markets tank due to corrupt practices.

Start with all the rating agencies - they offer consulting services to industry (and collect fees from bond issuers and underwriters) operate from an obvious conflict-of-interest position: how else can the AAA ratings assigned to sub-prime mortgages be explained? Allowing this corruption to continue to exist perpetuates false information which interferes with the natural operation of the markets.rating fees should paid collectively by institutional investors through professional society dues; retail investors should have a representative contribution made by the federal government, and accountability for their performance should be the only factor considered with regard to the possibility of bonuses or penalties. This change would protect investors without hindering markets.

Where is the proof that home ownership is better for society? Haven't the tax incentives and social pressures to own rather than rent pushed people into mortgages they couldn't afford?

I like that, a free for all market. I'm gonna use it. That's exactly what it was...is!

It wouldn't regulate derivatives, so let's not do it. That's such a politicians dumb argument.

If I remember correctly it was under Bush, in late “08, that “bail out” of banks began.
The Republicans want it both ways, yes no “bail out” but no don’t regulate rapacious and greedy bankers.
The Republicans, as usual, are running a BS con on the public.

hoover for president!!

Another example of Republican obstructionism. Saying whatever they want, wether fact or not, to not allow anything good to happen to this country under Obamas presidency so they can have a better election season come fall.
The current Republican party is the most un-American party in our history.

How is Lance proposing to insure against the bailouts then? Once again all I hear is criticism without any solutions.

We didn't bail out Lehman Bros. He thinks that worked out well? Failing institutions work like dominoes with repurcussions for the public far beyond the shareholders and officers of the bank in question

You just cannot do away with "Too Big to Fail." It would be unAmerican. But what you can do is require that every firm have more and more money set aside to compensate folks in case they do fail, which would in turn make it harder to be too big.

which ever party is in power will always do the bidding of big business

but away would representative lance like to cut the size of government by ending the corn subsidies that keep the midwest on welfare? maybe (poisonous) high fructose corn syrup would not be so cheap if the government wasn't paying for it.