Financial Reform

The house financial services committee tides lose ends on what could be essential reform legislation or depending on what they do. I think the committee should discuss the regulation of largely tolerant and dangerously difficult multi trillion-dollar to unoriginal markets. They should also discuss the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee the consumer credit offerings of banks and other financial firms that includes mortgages, credit cards, overdraft protection and payday loans.

I fear that it is in danger of being irreversible weakened. Derivatives supposed to help investors and business maintain risk, but it doesn’t. Their unchecked and unregulated use directly and indirectly. It leads to financial crash and following trillions of dollars in taxpayer involvement.

Congress should require that all banks, hedge funds and corporations can conduct their trades on exchanges where they would consider doing regulations and public inspection. The proposed legislation has too many loopholes and exemptions. Many corporations would be able to trade privately. That may protect bank profit; there is no chance for association shopping. It might put the taxpayer at risk. I think some lawmakers would want or make intent on weakening the proposed power to examine the books of the banks and firms.

I think they will try their best to regulate it. Banks regulators have the power, but they did not use it for protecting the best interest of their consumers. There is a routine inspection on the books to see if the company is doing their job. Lawmakers vowed to protects the American public from the banks and financial industries.

Americans Strike Back

This blog is called "Shock Polls: Americans Back Strike on Iran if Nuke Talks Fail" by David Paul Kuhan. David writes about what the Americans' beliefs and what they want on the topic of preventing Iran to build nuclear weapons. He is writing on the Americans' point of view. David’s conflict is the Americans pressure to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. For example he said that "The Pew Research Center reported Tuesday that about six in 10 Americans support a military strike if nuclear negotiations break down." The Pew Research Center also reported "that 64 percent of Americans say that negotiations will not alone convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, mimicking Fox's poll results last week " He got some information based on two polls. He backed up his evidence by telling where he got it and what the polls reported. I think David should give us more data on the poll to give the reader more detail about it. In the blog it sound like the Americans are worried about what happening Iran. David write about what the Americans want like to have a “direct talks with Tehran. But now two polls show a strong majority also believes talks will eventually fail. And if they do fail, Americans want their military to use force to keep Iran from building the bomb." He also backed it up by bring up the polls. David is trying to let the Americans to have a voice on the war and what going on there. I like how the writer used the Americans’ opinion. I think David's credibility is alright. He told us where he got the data and told us some information about it.

Mississippi’s Problem

This editorial is called "Mississippi’s Failure" by a New York Times writer. The author wrote about how the states spend 50 percent of money on low and moderate income families, but the state managed to get waivers and spend the money on different projects. The author is trying to reach out to the people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina and people who want to repair their house that had been hit by the hurricane. The writer's credibility is hard to say because there is a quote but it did not say who said it. The writer gave an example about a guy who has been sleeping in a FEMA trailer because his home has been destroyed and it is not repair. It's seems that the writer give good evidence. The writer gives numbers and good facts. Also it was logical and clear. I agree with what the writer wrote because you can't spend money on projects when the money is supposed to go to rebuild homes.

A Voice of Veterans

This article is called "The Voice of a New Generation of Veterans" by Philip Rucker, Washington Post Staff Writer is about a veteran named; Matt Flavin is 29 years old; he had survived fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he is charged with helping President Obama to increase veterans’ benefits. Flavin is trying to complete the new GI Bill to grant education benefits to veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan. Also, he is trying to establish an electronic medical records system. When Flavin was in Iraq and Afghanistan, he experienced traumatic brain injury. Now, he is trying his best to make a policy to better deal with post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries.

In Obama’s 2010 spending plan, he would increase 11 percent in VA funding, “more treatment centers, more case mangers and better medical care." Also he would support for transportable and rural clinics to reach veterans who have returned home. Veterans are an important political, making up about 15 percent of voters in the 2008 presidential. For a president that has no military experience, he is concern for our troops.

I think this article is worth reading because it is showing that there is a plan to expand veterans’ benefits. I like the idea the Obama is making a plan for the veterans. The veterans went to Iraq to help protect this country and they should get help or something in return.