The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "House votes to clamp down on Wall Street bonuses" because anger at executives' lavish lifestyles as commoners suffer is growing every day. The most emotive words in the title are obviously "clamp down" so it seems like these congressional officials are not joking in their call for an overhaul of the financial regulatory system.

The first sentence is "Bowing to populist anger, the House voted Friday to prohibit pay and bonus packages that encourage bankers and traders to take risks so large THAT THEY BRING DOWN THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL SYSTEM". OK, let's break this down. This financial meltdown started because banks made risky loans. Executive compensation, although not a direct cause of the financial crisis, is a key source of anger.

According to North Carolina Democratic Rep. Melvin Watt, "This is not the government taking over the corporate sector. It is a statement by the American people THAT IT IS TIME FOR US TO STRAIGHTEN UP THE SHIP" which has been driven by some towards disaster.

Another key sentence is: "Aware of voter outrage about the bonuses, Republicans were reluctant in Friday's debate to push back, EVEN THOUGH THEY VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST THE BILL". Republicans will surely lose this battle. Without this overhaul it will just be "business as usual" and during an economic crisis, second only to the Great Depression way back in 1929, we cannot have "business as usual".

"Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said (that) the extra regulation would ensure that bankers and traders who take big risks and lose on them WON'T CONTINUE TO GET REWARDED ANYWAY". This is like an investor saying to us 'Give me $100000 and I'll give you back $500000", but very few people who are sold on this lie will ever see any of their money again. This sort of behavior certainly shouldn't be rewarded.

In addition, Frank said that, if there were no restraints on wild, speculative investments, "the company loses money and the economy may suffer, but the decision-makers do not" and this is outrageous because this is the business world and in the business world, every action has a consequence.

Delaware Republican Rep. Michael Castle brings up an interesting point: "Since the legislation would apply to companies not receiving bailout money, the effect would be to force "financil institutions WHO DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CRISIS TO PAY FOR THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS". Mr. Castle, this is the business world and in the business world, there will inevitably be unintended consequences. Let's think about a much simpler example. Just think about smokers. Many people smoke, but nonsmokers outnumber smokers in most societies/countries. Every time a non-smoker is in the presence of a smoker, they are at risk of dying prematurely of lung cancer, heart failure, etc. Life is full of consequences, both intended and unintended,

There was also a tense exchange between Texas Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Frank. Hensarling started: "IF YOU QUIT BAILING OUT risky behavior, Mr. Chairman, you'll receive less risky behavior", which is true.

Frank retorted: "We are not taking orders from the Obama administration" although Democrats do seem to be very closely aligned with the President, while Republicans, for the most part, havebeen fiercely opposed to Mr. Obama's proposals.

Finally, according to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "Obviously, it has some important things that we think need to become law and we'll take a look at the full bill". Only "some important points", Mr. Press Secretary? This proposal has a lot of "important things" .