Well, I like Glen Beck because he wants to preserve liberties. And he really doesn't give a crap what people think.
Anyway, to say that people who got the bad mortgages were not at fault in any way is just asinine. Why would anybody jump into a purchase that big without researching it? Also, many of them were prompted to lie about income levels and whatnot. If you lie on something like that, expect to get burned. Lastly, do an F&A before deciding how much YOU can afford, banks tend to tell you you can qualify for more than you really could.

I like these changes, there definelty needs to be more regulation and oversight of the financial industry in the future, I also find it funny that the same people who whine about the Government getting more power are he same people who want a big military run by that government, talk about irony, yeah, let them have all the guns they want, but heaven forbid they should try and regulate things to prevent abuse

You sir, have no concept of how the free market works. If a business is shady, people will stop purchasing their product. A business that is legit, will get more business. And that is why I am against government control. They just mess up the way the free market works and clogs up the system. Tell me when the government has ever done something efficiently and correctly? I can site a few examples to the opposite. The DMV, Wellfare, Mass transit, Taxes, just to name a few. The kind of regulation the government is doing with the banks is actually going to do more harm than good. See, they are now forcing banks to make MORE bad loans (to fill a quota) in exchange for tax money. I say let the damn banks fail, let us go through a few months to a year of really tough stuff, and lets learn from the mistake. Of course, with Government at the reigns, history is destined to repeat itself.

First off in europe there are many examples where government involvement has been a success, resulting in situations which the free market could not bring about, just shows that well designes government systems can work well.

Also you're a fool if you think that the free market will result in beneficial outcomes on its own, first off there is the fact that information is not always shared equally, and then their is the propensity for the market to become irrational, this current crisis is a good example of the irrationality of the market and of information not being equal.

Also during the Depression many of the banks were allowed to fail, guess what we had a decade of economic collapse, you really have no idea do you, allowing the banks to fail would be the dumbest move ever, without a functioning financial market money would not flow through the economy, people would hoarde their cash and unemployment would skyrocket.

First of all, almost everyone with a political opinion thinks they understand what is right or wrong, and they all think they are on the 'right' side.

Secondly, government regulation is not slavery.  If anything, a group of banks or credit cards that prey on people is more in tune with slavery than a government agency that's sole purpose is to protect consumers.

Except Europeon countries also see less economic growth and higher rates of unemployment.

Less government intervention largely coincides with larger government growth and lower unemployment.

Denmark aside due to flexicity which actually has a lot less government controls in a lot of areas in europe and even the rest of europe can't copy.

So it really depends on what you want your economy to do... much better with slight chances of systematic failure... (though the US economy is still better then most europeon economies GDP wise) or safer with slower growth.

The saftey of the section option usually seems mitigated by the growth of the first option though... such growth more then making up for what would be lost.

So suddenly regulation on financial institutions = socialising the financial sector.

Honestly you guys, this is a massive over-reaction to very little news, after the financial crisis we all knew that some regulation would have to come into being and this doesn't actually detail what that regulation is. It just confirms that its coming.

And Mafoo, I don't know why, but I expected better from you than this blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

- ignore.

Regulation is when Congress passes law, and then the judicial branch enforces it. That's not what this is going to be. This is going to be an executive branch department with broad control over the finical system. There will be no judges, no trials. The president and his people will speak something, and it will be followed.

And I never said this is socialism, it's closer to a dictatorship. Obama has tried to strong arm finical institutions for several months, and has failed. He wanted some to take 30 cents on the dollar for loans when they had every right not to, when they didn't he publicly vilified them in an attempt to negatively impact there business.

Well, if you can't get your way though bully tactics, the next solution is to pass law that requires them to listen to you. That's what this is. My guess is if what Obama is going to propose was passes a year ago, that when Chrysler failed, Obama would have be well within his rights to not give the major lenders anything, and give all the money to The United Auto Workers (like he wanted to).

Why anyone would want to give one man this kind of power, is beyond me.

@TheRealMafoo: I'm just gonna assume you are correct as far as this reply goes:

Aren't these financial institutions now largely owned by the taxpayers? Once you get bailed out, you become someone else's bitch... If banks don't want to get strong-armed, next time they should take better care of their business instead of running it into the ground in the knowledge that they will become someone else's problem.