Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Seeks Remake of Fed's Powers

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:19 PM
Original message
Obama Seeks Remake of Fed's Powers
Source: Wall Street Journal

Jun 14, 2009, 10:29 p.m. EST
Obama seeks remake of Fed's powers: WSJ

By MarketWatch
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- President Barack Obama is expected Wednesday to propose a sweeping reorganization of financial-market supervision, including remaking the powers of the Federal Reserve, The Wall Street Journal said in a report on their Web site dated Monday.

The report, which cited people involved in the process, said Obama would call for allowing the Fed to oversee the biggest financial players and to give the government the power to unwind and break up systemically important companies.

The president will also seek to create a new regulator for consumer-oriented financial products but would stop short of calling for a complete consolidation of regulatory power that some lawmakers had advocated, the report said.

Lawmakers are expected to take issue with several of the plan's more thorny issues, including how to create a system that won't simply bail out large financial companies when they topple, it said.

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-seeks-remake-of-feds-powers-wsj
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Canada survived this mess relatively unscathed. Lesson: Follow the Canadians. Again.
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 10:22 PM by MichiganVote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. I knew there was a reason Krugman was happy with Obama
My guess is Obama told him this plan over their dinner :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Didn't they already float this a few months ago to a big uproar?
It feels like deja vu.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paulie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. No more Regulator Arbitrage !!!!!
No more having companies pick their own regulator! No more having the regulated fund their own regulation! No more having the weakest regulator be the GO TO regulator for anyone with more than 100 Million in assets in the entire umbrella holding corporation. The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has it's failure on a whole bunch of "thrifts"... WaMU, IndyMac, AIG, on and on and on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Anyone with WSJ subscription
able to fill us in???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Details for Remake of Financial Regulations.....
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 11:16 PM by ElsewheresDaughter

By DAMIAN PALETTA

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is expected Wednesday to propose the most sweeping reorganization of financial-market supervision since the 1930s, a revamp that would touch almost every corner of banking from how mortgages are underwritten to the way exotic financial instruments are traded.

At the center of the plan, which administration officials are referring to as a "white paper," is a move to remake powers of the Federal Reserve to oversee the biggest financial players, give the government the power to unwind and break up systemically important companies and create a new regulator for consumer-oriented financial products, according to people involved in the process.


Barack Obama

The plan stops short of the complete consolidation of power that some lawmakers have advocated. For example, it will allow several agencies to continue supervising banks. It also won't place specific limits on the size or scope of financial institutions, but it will make it much harder for large companies to be so overleveraged that they threaten the broader economy.

After Mr. Obama details his proposal, the process will quickly move to Capitol Hill, where Congress would have to pass legislation to enact the changes. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is scheduled to appear before both Senate and House panels on Thursday, where he is likely to face questions and criticisms.

Lawmakers are expected to take issue with several of the plan's more thorny issues, including how to create a system that won't simply bail out large financial companies when they topple. Giving the Fed more clout -- in light of recent criticism from lawmakers, both Republican and Democratic, of its secrecy and accumulation of power -- will also be a controversial idea.

Democrats in Congress could push for more consumer-protection powers and stricter limits on executive compensation than administration officials want. And bureaucratic turf wars could emerge as some authorities are reapportioned.

Administration officials say their goal is to make it less likely the economy will ever again teeter on the brink of collapse by giving policy makers more tools to arrest a crisis the next time one occurs.

They envision a less volatile financial marketplace where banks are encouraged, through tougher capital, liquidity and leverage requirements, to take fewer risks that have the potential to destabilize the economy. Hedge funds would be forced to register with the government and may face federal supervision if they are large and complex enough. Mortgages and other consumer products would be monitored by a new watchdog, and there would be global transparency rules over exotic financial instruments.

"Considerations of stability, safety and systemic risk have to loom larger in the planning, thinking, and strategizing of every financial institution going forward than they have in the past," White House National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers said in a speech on Friday.

The proposal won't sweep away the confusing and sometimes overlapping patchwork of state and federal supervisors that often clash over jurisdiction. Critics say institutions have been shopping around for the regulator with the lightest touch and that systemwide problems fell through the cracks.

In fact, the proposal could lead to the abolishment of just one agency -- the Office of Thrift Supervision. With the proposed new consumer agency, the number of agencies overseeing finance would remain unchanged.

Officials say the goal is to distribute power in such a way that gaps in oversight are removed and the opportunities for regulator shopping reduced.

Policy makers have pushed sweeping changes over the regulation of financial markets before with mixed results. In March 2008, then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed an overhaul of supervision, but Congress didn't take up the ideas.

Other efforts have had unintended consequences. The Clinton administration won legislation that broke down Depression-era barriers between commercial banking, investment banking and insurance, among other things. Mr. Obama has criticized that law for helping create some of the financial behemoths that threatened the economy last year.

The current White House, which made the revamp a centerpiece of its early months in office, is keen to move fast. "Experience teaches that once the crisis has passed, the will to reform will pass as well," Mr. Summers said in his speech.

The plan calls on the Fed to oversee financial institutions, products, or practices that could pose a systemic risk to the economy. It will create a "council" of regulators to monitor this area as well. Government officials believe this arrangement will forestall companies from growing large and overleveraged without substantial federal supervision, as happened, for example, in the case of giant insurer American International Group Inc.

The Fed will likely have the power to set capital and liquidity requirements for the U.S.'s largest financial companies and scour the books of a wide range of firms. It is unclear what enforcement powers the central bank will have; that likely will be a point of contention as lawmakers debate the issue.

How the Fed interacts with this council also will be a subject of debate. Administration officials envision the council being able to recommend that a specific company, product or practice be subject to Fed supervision, with the central bank ultimately accountable for each area or company that poses the systemic risk. This could set up clashes between the Fed and the council, especially if one is more hawkish than the other.

The plan will empower the government to take over and wind down a range of financial companies, much like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. currently does with failed banks.

The goal is to avoid repeating a situation akin to the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., where the government had no authority to smoothly unwind the failing institution. A step such as this is expected to be exercised only rarely, and it could first require approval by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and FDIC, people familiar with the process said. Once a company is placed into receivership, the process will likely be run by the FDIC. It is unclear how such a program will be financed.

On some potentially divisive issues, the administration tried to find a delicate balance, people familiar with the process said. For example, it won't call for the Securities and Exchange Commission to merge with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, being unwilling to expend political capital on the battles with congressional fiefdoms that this move would spark.

But the proposal will push for much more "harmonization" between these two agencies. There has long been tension between them because many of the companies overseen by the SEC trade derivatives and other products regulated by the CFTC.

The new regulator overseeing consumer protection is expected to take some areas that once belonged to the Fed -- such as credit cards and mortgages -- but isn't expected to siphon off supervision of investment products such as mutual funds from the SEC.

Mr. Obama will call for several requirements to be adopted globally, such as tougher capital requirements for the largest financial institutions and the power to wind down large, globally interconnected banks. Administration officials also are calling for more transparency over complex derivatives that are traded by large, multinational companies.

"Risk and leverage will always tend to migrate to where the constraints are weakest," Mr. Geithner said Saturday after a meeting in Italy of finance ministers from the Group of Eight major powers. "We need a level playing field globally, or the effectiveness of our national safeguards against risk will be undermined."


http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?singlepost=1287201
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is expected to take up the measure on Capitol Hill soon and could have a comprehensive package passed by August. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) said his panel could hold votes in the fall with a final measure completed by the end of the year. That is consistent with the administration's timetable.

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12450203....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Thanks for this.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. We need preventative regulation.
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 04:15 AM by Lasher
The Clinton administration won legislation that broke down Depression-era barriers between commercial banking, investment banking and insurance, among other things. Mr. Obama has criticized that law for helping create some of the financial behemoths that threatened the economy last year.


I didn't see the part where we undo the damage done by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. And the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 deregulated derivative trading. That needs to be fixed too.

It is critical to fix whatever it was that allowed us to get into this mess (as well as the S&L crisis of the 1980s), so that catastrophes are prevented, not cured. Otherwise we'll just keep throwing more money at problems again and again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Why not just repeal Gramm-Leach-Bliley
and reinstate Glass-Steagall? Seems silly to keep reinventing the wheel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I was wondering exactly that.
But instead of restoring these New Deal safeguards we're seeing something else unfold. It seems complicated and sometimes that's not a good sign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hey, this actually sounds like a good idea.
It means we're learning our lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. The biggest banks *are* the Federal Reserve.
We need skeptical, educated and proven regulators running the Fed, not the same old insiders from BoA, CitiGroup and Wall St..

We can't afford to repeat this cycle for at least another century, so let's not enable them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
34. It SURE DOES.
The best way to solve this is to give The Fed More unchecked Power!

I mean look at all the trouble they have SAVED us from.

Oh, Wait....

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Earth Bound Misfit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Anyone a WSJ subscriber?
Edited on Sun Jun-14-09 11:07 PM by Earth Bound Misfit
Interesting that this story breaks on a Sun night.

ETA just saw reply #7, thanks EW's Daughter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Giving the Federal Bank more power is BAD.
It is a private banking system that is not answerable to the Congress or the White House.


The Constitution says only Congress has the power to coin and regulate money, essentially.

Giving the Fed. more power is what Paulson floated in early 2008.
It really means giving Goldman Sachs more power, along with Chase and BOA.

And the dirty secret is Congress knows this, Bernanke and Geithner have planned this, and out of the crisi they created comes the "fix" they created.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Christian Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Thank You.
I'm glad someone said it. I don't think people realize that "The Federal Reserve" is a group of international bankers that answer to... themselves. Among deregulation, "free" markets, Graham Leach Bliley, trickle-down, Bank Modernization,... the fed also plays a part in the mess we're in now. I'm a liberal that votes democrat but my main hang-up with democratic politicians (aside from their infuriating apathy) is their much stronger affiliation with the Fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. I am amazed at how many arguments I get on DU about Fed. being Government agency.
Anyone who searches for "how money works" on Google or You Tube
will find plenty of informative history on central banks and their role in destroying economies,
going back hundreds of years.
One giant Ponzi scheme after another.
One huge long term pattern that is all too quickly forgotten by the following generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Fed Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Christian Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. That's the point... they're appointed -and they shouldn't be.
When have you ever heard of a United States President and/or Congress deciding against a Federal Reserve System?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Most major economic powers have an independent central bank
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 12:18 AM by Hippo_Tron
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Christian Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. Yep. Again, that's the point. That central bank would be...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DallasNE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Real Key Is Meaningful Congressional Oversight
Current regulations should have been adequate. The problem was Bush kept putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The outcome was both predictable and predicted. Exhibit A was the SEC Chairman Cox.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/96487-5-failures-of-sec-chairman-cox

Congress should have ordered Cox to implement the regulations or face criminal contempt charges. What we need is a Congress that is an independent branch of government -- as it is written up in the Constitution. My concern is that the proposed changes are little more than putting lipstick on a pig.

(Is it too late to hold Cox in contempt and send him to prison. Unless we make an example somewhere there is little chance of getting effective regulation in the future.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
winyanstaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-14-09 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think the Federal Reserve has done quite enough to America..Thanks anyways...
Why would we keep propping up a system that has failed us so many times? This is not the first time the Banks have dragged us into the mud of depressions.
Enough is enough..return the right of the American People to have congress print our own dang money and lets get rid of the debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. K&R! Go baby!
I have confidence in my President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I have to second that
Rock on B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
33. I just wish folks
would let the man work on this mess created by the neo-cons with reasonable limits of expectation of time for resolution!!!

'Sheeple' must mean people with a realistic viewpoint. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clixtox Donating Member (941 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Sheeple...

I don't have much confidence.

Even my hope is seriously diminished.

It looks to me that Obama is beholden to the bankers.

Of course a thrown bone occasionally does mollify the masses...

Bow-wow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Thank you for enlightening us
on how us poor, dumb sheeple are being lead astray:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patchuli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. Just your own fuckin' opinion, huh?
Welcome, newbie. I guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
17. The Federal Reserve needs less power, not more.
One need only look at the way the Fed used their existing powers over the past two decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
M155Y_A1CH Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. I absolutely agree. + Kick the thread
We should ask ourselves "who stands to gain by the evaporation of billions of dollars in the stock market" etc...

Nobody will ever be able to demand those dollars in gold.



How do they use those mysterious powers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
20. The people regurgitating libertarian anti-Fed conspiracy theories are gonna have exploding heads.
"The report, which cited people involved in the process, said Obama would call for allowing the Fed to oversee the biggest financial players and to give the government the power to unwind and break up systemically important companies."

Only the anti-Fed Ron-Paulite fanatics would see anything bad about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
25. Disaster
The FDIC or some other GOVERNMENT agency should be the regulatory body. Not the private association of the worlds biggest bankers known as the Federal Reserve. They're the ones who got us in this mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Exactly. Why should a few big banks get to call the shots on all of the other banks?
Edited on Mon Jun-15-09 01:49 PM by w4rma
Especially after what these few big banks just did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
26. Very good news... except for the part about giving the Federal Reserve more power. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
28. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
29. Anybody with ties to Goldman Sachs available to implement this? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Coot Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-15-09 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
30. Obama’s Overhaul to Expand Asset-Backed Disclosure (Securities)
Source: Bloomberg

June 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration is set to propose new rules for asset-backed securities, including requiring trades to be reported on an electronic database, a U.S. Treasury spokesman said.

The plan, to be unveiled June 17 as part of the administration’s overhaul of financial regulation, will also require originators to retain 5 percent of the credit risk on loans they package into securities, Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said today. Issuers of the securities will also be subject to additional disclosure in public filings, including revealing loan-level data, he said.

Asset-backed securities comprised of mortgages and other loans helped fuel the credit crisis by encouraging banks to lower lending standards. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking earlier today in New York, said the administration’s plan will aim to fill gaps in oversight, require more disclosure and realign incentives so they don’t favor excessive risk.

<snip>

The proposed asset-backed rules will also call for fees and commissions received by loan brokers and officers to be paid over time. The payments will be reduced if a loan isn’t repaid because of poor underwriting standards, Williams said.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ageoha2tgzg8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
39. Obama to Limit Fed Lending Power, Grant Systemic Role
Source: Bloomberg

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration plans to restrict the Federal Reserve’s emergency-lending powers while endowing it with new authority for systemic risk, ushering in what may become the Fed’s biggest overhaul in decades.

President Barack Obama’s proposal on financial regulation, to be released in Washington today, would force the central bank to get written approval from the Treasury secretary before using the authority, according to a copy of the document obtained by Bloomberg News. Obama also calls for a study of the Fed’s governance structure, including how it regulates financial firms.

The move is part of a proposal that would alter almost every facet of federal rules for the industry, aiming to prevent the regulatory lapses and build-up of risks that led to the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Much of the plan will require approval in Congress, where jurisdictional battles and ideological clashes may delay and alter the legislation. Obama aims to sign a bill by the end of the year.

“We have to have somebody who is responsible for seeing the risks of the system as a whole and not just individual institutions,” Obama said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg News, referring to making the Fed the systemic risk regulator. “The Fed is best positioned to do that.”



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIA5KsKdW74s



So it seems now that while it will get some more powers it will be losing others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC