Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Democrats set showdown vote on Wall Street bill

Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:18 PM EDT
business, politics, us, barack-obama, wall-street, financial, overhaul
David Espo, AP Special Correspondent
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 8 photos
<p>President Barack Obama arrives at JFK International Airport in New York, Thursday, Apr. 22,2010, on his way to deliver a major economic speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan (AP Photo/David Karp) </p>

President Barack Obama arrives at JFK International Airport in New York, Thursday, Apr. 22,2010, on his way to deliver a major economic speech at Cooper Union in Manhattan (AP Photo/David Karp)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Declaring themselves short of patience, Democrats set an initial showdown vote for next Monday on legislation to clamp new regulations on the financial industry while Republicans insisted on more bargaining. President Barack Obama admonished Wall Street leaders "to join us instead of fighting us" to prevent a future national financial collapse.

The test vote loomed in an election-year climate, with lawmakers ready to campaign this summer on the results of this legislation — written in reaction to the economic crisis that threw the nation into recession — as well as the hard-fought health care overhaul.

"The time for stalling is over," declared Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. That drew a quick response from the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "I don't think bipartisanship is a waste of time."

Without an accord with the GOP, which was blocking the start of formal debate on the bill, Democrats would need 60 votes to move ahead in the Senate. Despite some signs of wavering, all 41 Republicans in the 100-member Senate remained publicly opposed on Thursday.

Reid was eager to test the Republican resolve, even as bipartisan negotiations continued. Reid conceded that the timetable for a vote could change if the talks bear fruit. Without a bipartisan bargain, Democrats were determined to portray Republicans as Wall Street allies and put them through test votes until enough senators agreed to proceed.

Emerging from a late afternoon meeting with Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, the committee's top Republican, Richard Shelby, said chances of an agreement before Monday's vote were "probably not probable." He predicted Republicans would vote as a bloc to put off action on the bill.

At the same time, senior Democrats signaled Thursday they hope to ease day-old restrictions a Senate committee slapped on the trading of financial derivatives, the complex investments blamed as a contributing factor to the economic near-meltdown of 2008.

The sweeping regulations represent the broadest attempt to overhaul the U.S. financial system since the 1930s. A House-passed bill and the pending Senate version would create a mechanism for liquidating large firms, set up a council to detect systemwide financial threats and establish a consumer protection agency to police lending, credit cards and other bank-customer transactions.

Opinion polls show the public is receptive to new federal curbs on Wall Street after twin catastrophes — the recession that has driven unemployment to double-digits and a banking crisis that has led to huge losses in Americans' retirement accounts.

No details were immediately available on possible changes on derivatives. But the Obama administration and some Senate Democrats have raised concerns over provisions cleared by the Senate Agriculture Committee, including one that would effectively require banks to spin off their derivatives business.

Reid said the heads of two Senate committees had met to discuss combining competing proposals on derivatives, financial products such as corn futures or stock options whose worth depends on the values of underlying investments. Companies use them to hedge against risks, such as interest rate swings or oil price spikes. But they became a vehicle for speculation and helped trigger the financial crisis when the underlying investments — mortgage-backed securities, for example — plunged in value.

Reid's comments were the first official word that the measure approved on Wednesday by the Agriculture Committee would not go directly to the Senate floor — even though the committee's chair, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, had told reporters she had assurances it would.

Lincoln, who faces a difficult re-election race, reacted with barely disguised anger. The committee "has passed not only the strongest, but the only bipartisan Wall Street reform bill," she said in a statement released to The Associated Press. "This legislation will only strengthen the broader reform bill and it should be incorporated as is and sent straight to the Senate floor."

Obama has made the broader legislation one of his congressional priorities, and in a speech in New York he chastised Wall Street for risky practices at the same time he sought its help for "updated, commonsense" banking regulations to head off any new financial crisis.

At a news conference during the day, top Democrats accused Republicans of falsely claiming a bill approved earlier in the Senate Banking Committee included a $50 billion fund that would be used to bail out failing banks.

"The lies are not taking hold," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Earlier, McConnell challenged Democrats to disprove his claim. "This bill would give the administration the authority to use taxpayer funds to support financial institutions at a time of crisis," he said.

"Yes, that bill says taxpayers get the money back later, but that sounds awfully familiar," he added.

As for derivatives, the Agriculture Committee legislation would require bank companies to spin off those operations, barring them not only from trading in the instruments themselves but also from creating deals for other clients. The objective is to avoid exposing commercial bank operations to the risks of the more speculative business.

The Banking Committee version would prohibit bank companies from engaging in speculative trades with their own accounts, but it would not do away with the ability of banks to create derivatives markets for clients.

Last week, a senior Treasury official indicated a preference for the approach taken by the Banking Committee, and there is additional concern that the alternative could lead to greater concentration in a market where a handful of firms conduct about 80 percent of derivatives business.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • David Espo's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (42)
Britlassy

Barack Obama admonished Wall Street leaders "to join us instead of fighting us" to prevent a future national financial collapse.

I believe he is correct in this instance.

One cannot have a national financial collapse, when the piggy bank is empty.

  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:37 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Reply
R. Donald Snyder

It'll pass because the GOP doesn't want to be seen by the voters as favoring Wall Street over Main Street going into the fall elections. It would be a bad political move for them to oppose it. I don't think that they think it's worth the fight and will wait until the President starts pushing for energy or immigration reform to put up a fight.

  • 8 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:39 PM EDT
JoulesBeef

wellt hey did oppose it.. they called it a bail out and half the people in their own party laughed.

it all came directly from the luntz memo.. which they denied knowing about.. which happened to use the exact same verbage

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:13 PM EDT
blaze1024

Finally !! It's about damn time Obama and the democrats showed some backbone and taught those good for nothing obstructionist a lesson.

If the Right continues to abuse their position at the negotiating table as a means of nothing other then obstruction rather then negotiation. It is they who are preventing any possible bipartisan resolution.

If thats the case then the Democrats should simply ignore them. They should immediately and without delay push forward and pass what ever legislation is on the board.

Maybe then the Obstructionists will realize that it's really in their best interest to work together rather then simply obstruct

  • 4 votes
#2.2 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:52 PM EDT
irrepairDeleted
Bubba-939441

Do they even need the Republicans with the Democratic majority? Dems can pass anything they want without em. Just like they did health care. Majority rules.

  • 1 vote
#2.4 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:16 PM EDT
trex-138069

Bubba, it should if the Senate didn't have customs like the filibuster (which is not mandated anywhere in the Constitution), and if the Republicans hadn't been abusing it so outrageously. But on this issue, Republican ranks are cracking, and the Democrats will probably get the votes they need. It's a win-win; either they win the vote or they get a great campaign issue for the fall, and the Republicans know it.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:41 PM EDT
DEATHNELL J.

Finally, a bill with enough TEETH to put the brakes on Wall Street!!! Opposition by the republicans only goes to show who's pocket they really belong to... Yes we want to take our country back...from the corporate shills that are only interested in stuffing their pockets by taking what little the "struggling" American public has left!!! "This" bill IS the BEST thing to come out of this administration so far. Time for the bought and paid for politicians from BOTH parties to; HIT THE ROAD!!!

  • 2 votes
#2.6 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:07 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Reply
tweetheart44

Yup, like I've said all along, the Republicans are for Wall Street, big corporations, banks, and mortgage companies. Hands off??? BULL CRAP! Oh, they'd love to be able to screw the citizens of the United States again if things get bad. Why wouldn't they? No skin off their greedy little noses! They're still getting THEIR bonuses...and even bigger ones than LAST year. What are we...idiots? We need to FORCE the government to pass legislation so that the bailouts NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

The president needs to make laws so that these crooks can never "be too big to fail" again. No pity, Wall Street.

  • 9 votes
Reply#3 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:44 PM EDT
Blacksmithking

Lighten up, Francis.

I've heard that this latest finance bill wouldn't have prevented the recent financial meltdown, and it won't prevent similar occurances in the future. If that's so, why are we doing this?

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:47 PM EDT
tweetheart44

Blacksmithing, There are only two reasons why the Republicans are fighting this bill.

#1) The obvious....President Obama wants it.

#2) Big corporations are paying off the politicians to vote against it.

This might be the first step to fixing the problems. The new bill needs to have some TEETH. It needs to force Wall Street to stop screwing us over. I don't know about you, but I've had enough. We cannot afford another financial catastrophe like this last one. NO MORE BAILOUTS...EVER!

  • 9 votes
#3.2 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:56 PM EDT
Harrydawg

Hey tweet,, wasn't it Barney Frank, and the then Senator Obama that voted not to regulate the mortgage companies and Freddie and Fannie ran amuck? Also. I believe if you check, you will find that Pres. Obama received $950,000 from Wall Street. That seems like alot of pork to me.

  • 3 votes
#3.3 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:08 PM EDT
JoulesBeef

harrydawg this has been debunked 9 million times.. besides who controlled all of government back in 2005?
what that was, was about regulating the finacial reporting of frannie.. which would have done nothing at all about the derivative games going on.

the crap about "obama receieved from wall street"

this are political donations for people that happen to work at firms on wallstreet.
Sure it is something to watch out for in both parties.. but you act like it was the corp itself that gave him money rather than indivual contributions made by employees.. american citizens.. when the real big mess.. the real way to buy congress.. is to have a PAC.. then there are no limits.. then corps directly fund these things.. there they have no election oversight at all.

I've heard that this latest finance bill wouldn't have prevented the recent financial meltdown, and it won't prevent similar occurances in the future. If that's so, why are we doing this?

well just look at the source were you heard it from.
Just saying fox isnt the bastion of truth.. especially these days.
It makes the deriviatives transparent.
it makes the banks fund an insurance program to help deal with the mess when they go bust so we dont have to.

how can you claim it wouldnt prevent what we just went through?

even greenspan said his big problem wasnt regualting the transparency of dirivatives.

even clinton too responsibility said he souldnt have listen to rubem and summers when they said that deriviatives did not need to be transparent.

  • 3 votes
#3.4 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:21 PM EDT
blueingoregon

It was the republicans who VOTED for the $700 billion dollar bail out!! And it was the Dems who tried to secure "oversight" but the Republicans didn't want oversight they WANTED to gift their biggest donors before the PARTY was over!! Now Obama has to fix this mess and try to keep the country running!

We do need even deep reform but if we have to pander to the BIG BUSINESS republicans, the bill will get watered down, just like health care reform!! The health care bill was strong to start with even a public option "YOU COULD BUY INTO" but the republicans and theprivate insurance companies didn't want meaningful reform so the bill was compromised to the point noone likes it, except the private health insurance companies!!

  • 4 votes
#3.5 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:30 PM EDT
Bubba-939441

I thought Barney didn't want to regulate his lover over at Fannie. The same lover who was funneling money over to Barney. If you guys are saying the Dems are guiltless in this, you're flat out wrong.

  • 1 vote
#3.6 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:22 PM EDT
trex-138069

Bubba, you sound pathetically desperate.

  • 5 votes
#3.7 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:43 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Reply
tweetheart44

R. Donald, I hope that the Republicans keep going against what is good for all Americans. It will help us in November. Conservatives need to see that their elected officials are NOT for the good of the people who voted for them.

  • 7 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:48 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

Here is some history of Republican Phil Gramm, ranked number two on the Time Magazine list of 25 people to blame for the financial crisis and former Senate banking committee chairman.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html

For those with a short memory, this legislation was the centerpiece of the Republican deregulation congress of 1998 to 2006. Repealing the Glass Steagall Act and allowing consolidation/mergers led directly to "too big to let fail."

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

Then there was the legislation that enabled derivatives wild speculation, as it just did not go far enough or had regulator follow through.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that clarified most over-the-counter derivatives (“OTC derivatives”) transactions between “sophisticated parties” would not be regulated as “futures” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) or as “securities” under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general “safety and soundness” standards.

Which had the Enron Loophole added to it like a pork project after all discussion (most likely by Phil Gramm, an ex Enron lobbyist), which enabled the Enron electricity scandal to happen in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

WAS THIS RECESSION GOOD FOR ALL AMERICANS? It was good for the surviving Wall Street giants that survived because they got bailed out (loans at zero percent interest) and because other giants went under, now are bigger than ever controlling most of the industry. Goldman Sachs made great profits this last quarter and they are handing out billions of dollars of bonuses.

The rest of us average Americans have lost jobs, homes, pensions, college funds for the kids, investments, interest rates on CD's and money market accounts, etc.... NOT SO GOOD!

Time to get some real bank reform accomplished. I would prefer stronger reform, but its better than nothing or the previous legislation that enabled this recession to happen.

  • 6 votes
#4.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:41 PM EDT
blueingoregon

This is why we pay $3.00< per gallon for gas, not because oil is really that expensive.

  • 2 votes
#4.2 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:33 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

I read an article about the price of oil increasing as much as 60 percent by speculation. This includes Hedge Fund managers, many of whom helped create the recession and are now slowing down recovery by driving the price of oil up.

  • 2 votes
#4.3 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:28 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Reply
Gwendolyn Barrick

no they are not going to help the people at all. the pres. is just padden the banks pockets.

  • 3 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:49 PM EDT
Lkessler

I just think this is another "pushover" vote, with little regard for actual regulations in place. We don't need any new regulations--what's needed is enforcement. Apparently, no one on Capitol Hill is familiar with the concept.

Too bad... :(

  • 6 votes
#5.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:33 PM EDT
trex-138069

Lkessler, no, we need regulations to replace the ones that Reagan began dismantling.

Remember the 50th anniversary of the Big Crash? I remember reading at the time that "Can it happen again? Maybe, but not for the same reasons." The big mistake that writer made was to assume that the safeguards put in place after 1929 would stay in place after hard-right free market Republicans got their hands on the White House again.

  • 1 vote
#5.2 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:45 PM EDT
Reply
bigbugy

Don't ask me why but I guess you could call it morbid curiosity.I'm really interested in seeing how the Republicans handle this one.From past experiences we can only assume they will be ignorant enough to oppose it.

The political enviornment says they should help get it passed but they haven't shown any signs of wanting whats best for the country yet so I won't be terribly surprised if they go against the country on this issue as well.

  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:43 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

See post 4.1

Unfortunately that was their idea of Wall Street legislation was during the Republican majority congress of 1998 to 2006. Repeal what was working allow Wall Street to develop too bit to let fail, enable the next recession by not developing derivatives regulation tough enough to keep pace with the white collar criminals.

  • 3 votes
#6.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:49 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Reply
rule the world

Governmental involvement IS THE REASON for all the problems!

  • 5 votes
Reply#7 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:55 PM EDT
Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
Real World Engineer

That doesn't fly, when every one has seen how corrupt and screwed up private industry is.

Private industry is only obsessed with short term gains.

They have no plans for the long term, which results in crashes. Most of their leaders are corrupt and incompetent and would destroy this country and it's people for an extra buck.

One good thing to come out of this crash is that a lot, lot, more people have NO trust and faith in "private capitalist industry" anymore.

  • 1 vote
#7.2 - Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:47 PM EDT
Reply
asomatous

This was a super short speech, considering all the prep they had to do to protect him. They put the names of interested persons in a lottery to seat the auditorium, but alas! I wasn't picked. Al Sharpton was there, apparently...

  • 1 vote
Reply#8 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:55 PM EDT
Bkrst

There is always a snake in the grass waiting to strike its prey.

In this case;

Washington=Snake.

Consumer=Prey. (Includes supporters of this Administration also)

Somewhere down the line the prey are going to pay a hefty price for this WallStreet Bill..

Another Bill the people have no voice on..

  • 3 votes
Reply#9 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:16 PM EDT
bigbugy

Med time?

  • 2 votes
#9.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:28 PM EDT
Reply
bigbugy

while Republicans insisted on more bargaining.

The reason we are in the mess we are in.

  • 2 votes
Reply#10 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:27 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

Stalling to see if the reform bill is still around after November? Then they might hand out corporate subsidies to their good buddies on Wall Street.

  • 6 votes
#10.1 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:50 PM EDT
Reply
Old Bohemian

This or any other legislation is not going to "fix" the economic problems.

Congress, the Administration and Wall Street need to look outside their "club houses" and face reality.

There are too many people, too much greed, too much ignorance and not enough resources for any kind of economic improvement.

It may appear to improve, but it will continue to deteriorate has it has done for years.

  • 3 votes
Reply#11 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:33 PM EDT
mountainmike-1199289

What's needed is tougher reform by people that know of every little weaselly white collar criminal trick in the book. And then its up to regulators to do more than be asleep at the wheel, as they were through the Bush two terms such as Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers scam, etc...

Alan Greenspan also had a lot of time between when economists started predicting the housing bubble would burst in 2002 to it actually bursting in 2007. He could have raised interest rates to slow down the wild speculation. But he was one of those people that believed the market would take of itself. Just think if that should be the appropriate match up with the weaselly white collar criminals of Wall Street.

  • 3 votes
Reply#12 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:55 PM EDT
network-gal

Very true!! I still have nightmares of Larry Kudlow screaming "this is the free market it will take care of itself"...R I G H T!

    #12.1 - Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:33 PM EDT
    Reply
    zhenyaoDeleted
    Tom's view from outside

    Somehow I'm losing faith that they'll actually address the main causes of the problems. Which basically seem to be obscure accounting rules that allow companies to mask their losses as gains, thus presenting a totally false picture of financial health.

    As usual, Jon Stewart did a pretty good summary of it a while back, and it's the kind of thing that could be fixed with about 10 lines of legislation that should have been passed 10 days after the crisis started. (not that i usually favour knee-jerk laws, but in this case it's pretty simple).

    Adversarial politics seems to always lead to huge distractions, over-complexity and missing the target.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#14 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:12 PM EDT
    RBurn

    The Republican party doesn't want to touch Wall Street. That's the hand that feeds them. It makes me think of a quotation from Robert A Taft, "Every Republican candidate for president since 1936 has been nominated by Chase National Bank". If they are not using the fear factor, they just lie.Maybe their motto should be "Ask me no questions and I tell you no lies."

      Reply#15 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 PM EDT
      network-gal

      Where's that damn UPTICK RULE!?? We've been waiting a year for it to get reinstated....it should be impossible for a bunch of hedge fund managers to take a perfectly good company to it's knees in days.

      And what about the ratings agencies-nothing for them?

      • 1 vote
      Reply#16 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 PM EDT
      Todd-Debt-freeDeleted
      IndependentThinker-796986

      Hey, if Bozobama wants REAL financial reform in this country he should simply resign and get Pelosi and the rest of the nymphomaniacal-spending congressional democrats to do the same. That would take care of the main crooks in the governmentr.

      THEN, yes, pass a law to also throttle the Wall Street crooks.

      • 2 votes
      Reply#18 - Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:05 AM EDT
      trex-138069

      Wow, you sure managed to pack a lot of adolescent epithets and misogynistic cr@p into just three lines, didn't you?

      • 1 vote
      #18.1 - Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:09 AM EDT
      Reply
      network-gal

      If you need an education on what this is all about check out Jon Stewart!!

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/jon-stewart-takes-on-gold_n_544102.html

        Reply#19 - Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:03 PM EDT
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com