Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

House Republicans on Wednesday failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to block the Obama administration’s controversial standards for financial advisers.

The House voted 239-180 to block the fiduciary rule, well more than 40 votes short of the total needed.

Wednesday night's vote came as Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor, starting around nearly 12 hours earlier, to push for a vote on legislation to prevent terror suspects from buying guns.

House GOP leaders had originally scheduled the vote for earlier in the day, but pushed it back due to Democrats' sit-in and kept the chamber in recess until calling the vote on the fiduciary rule around 10 p.m.

Throughout the roll call, Democrats continued their protests with chants of "No bill, no break!" and at one point broke into singing "We Shall Overcome" with modified lyrics.

The Labor Department issued the fiduciary rule in April, requiring financial advisers to act in the best interest of their clients who are saving for retirement.

The House and Senate passed a disapproval measure earlier this year blocking the regulation under the Congressional Review Act, but President Obama vetoed it.

Democrats say the rule will protect consumers from bad investment advice, but Republicans argue it could force financial advisers to raise their prices, shutting out lower-income workers.

While the attempt to overturn the rule in Congress has now failed, the Obama administration must still fend off a lawsuit against the fiduciary rule filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other business groups. That court fight could drag on for months.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

House Republicans on Wednesday failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed to block the Obama administration’s controversial standards for financial advisers.

The House voted 239-180 to block the fiduciary rule, well more than 40 votes short of the total needed.

Wednesday night's vote came as Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor, starting around nearly 12 hours earlier, to push for a vote on legislation to prevent terror suspects from buying guns.

House GOP leaders had originally scheduled the vote for earlier in the day, but pushed it back due to Democrats' sit-in and kept the chamber in recess until calling the vote on the fiduciary rule around 10 p.m.

Throughout the roll call, Democrats continued their protests with chants of "No bill, no break!" and at one point broke into singing "We Shall Overcome" with modified lyrics.

The Labor Department issued the fiduciary rule in April, requiring financial advisers to act in the best interest of their clients who are saving for retirement.

The House and Senate passed a disapproval measure earlier this year blocking the regulation under the Congressional Review Act, but President Obama vetoed it.

Democrats say the rule will protect consumers from bad investment advice, but Republicans argue it could force financial advisers to raise their prices, shutting out lower-income workers.

While the attempt to overturn the rule in Congress has now failed, the Obama administration must still fend off a lawsuit against the fiduciary rule filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other business groups. That court fight could drag on for months.

http://thehill.com/regulation/284468-go ... viser-rule

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:



http://thehill.com/regulation/284468-go ... viser-rule

At least Obama's financial advisor doesn't have to deal with the riff-raff in the middle class now.

GannonFan wrote:....and in a few years we'll decry the fact that lower income people aren't being served by these services and we'll demand they have more access to these things, risks be damned. It's like a political narrative that is in a perpetual loop.

GannonFan wrote:Kinda like the sub-prime loan thing. We'll put in place laws to guard against people potentially taking advantage of lower-income people (who by laws like this are also defined as less intelligent people because of their lower income) and in a few years we'll decry the fact that lower income people aren't being served by these services and we'll demand they have more access to these things, risks be damned. It's like a political narrative that is in a perpetual loop.

GannonFan wrote:Kinda like the sub-prime loan thing. We'll put in place laws to guard against people potentially taking advantage of lower-income people (who by laws like this are also defined as less intelligent people because of their lower income) and in a few years we'll decry the fact that lower income people aren't being served by these services and we'll demand they have more access to these things, risks be damned. It's like a political narrative that is in a perpetual loop.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Kinda like the sub-prime loan thing. We'll put in place laws to guard against people potentially taking advantage of lower-income people (who by laws like this are also defined as less intelligent people because of their lower income) and in a few years we'll decry the fact that lower income people aren't being served by these services and we'll demand they have more access to these things, risks be damned. It's like a political narrative that is in a perpetual loop.

Good points. And it's not as if the lending industry was dragged kicking and screaming to make sub-prime loans. Or that builders, realtors, and hedge fund managers hated the idea.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good points. And it's not as if the lending industry was dragged kicking and screaming to make sub-prime loans. Or that builders, realtors, and hedge fund managers hated the idea.

The government gave them a license to seal, legally. Anybody would have done it, and everyone did.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good points. And it's not as if the lending industry was dragged kicking and screaming to make sub-prime loans. Or that builders, realtors, and hedge fund managers hated the idea.

The government gave them a license to seal, legally. Anybody would have done it, and everyone did.