Financial Reform Bill

[Nevada_Ballin]

Ok, let's take this hot topic on:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This bill has been written specifically to end any notion of any kind of a bailout by the American taxpayer again. Our bill stops bailouts by imposing tough new requirements on Wall Street firms. Being too big and too interconnected will cost these firms dearly. And should that not be enough, our legislation, regulators can use the new powers in our legislation to break these firms up before they can take down the economy of our country." ~ Sen. Dodd

Obama administration officials have signaled they want Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, to remove the $50 billion bank liquidation fund from the bill.

Obama rejects a compromise that would weaken the intent of the bill, saying last week he would veto legislation "that does not bring the derivatives market under control in some sort of regulatory framework that assures that we don't have the same kind of crisis that we have seen in the past."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a little confused as to where the GOP stands (except for they are against it) and why (outside of simply saying no for the sake of saying no). Maybe my conservative friends here can enlighten me?


.

[sideoutshu]

Ok, let's take this hot topic on:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"This bill has been written specifically to end any notion of any kind of a bailout by the American taxpayer again. Our bill stops bailouts by imposing tough new requirements on Wall Street firms. Being too big and too interconnected will cost these firms dearly. And should that not be enough, our legislation, regulators can use the new powers in our legislation to break these firms up before they can take down the economy of our country." ~ Sen. Dodd

Obama administration officials have signaled they want Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Banking Committee chairman, to remove the $50 billion bank liquidation fund from the bill.

Obama rejects a compromise that would weaken the intent of the bill, saying last week he would veto legislation "that does not bring the derivatives market under control in some sort of regulatory framework that assures that we don't have the same kind of crisis that we have seen in the past."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a little confused as to where the GOP stands (except for they are against it) and why (outside of simply saying no for the sake of saying no). Maybe my conservative friends here can enlighten me?


.

I really don't understand how the democrats can have the nerve to expect cooperation on ANYTHING after betraying the taxpayers and railroading the healthcare bill through via dirty tactics. You don't pull some sh*t like that and then turn around next week and say "JUST KIDDING! LET'S BE FRIENDS!"

[Nevada_Ballin]

I really don't understand how the democrats can have the nerve to expect cooperation on ANYTHING after betraying the taxpayers and railroading the healthcare bill through via dirty tactics. You don't pull some sh*t like that and then turn around next week and say "JUST KIDDING! LET'S BE FRIENDS!"

But that has nothing to do with the bill in question here. Is it this bill the right thing to do for America? If so, why? If not, why not?


.

[sideoutshu]

But that has nothing to do with the bill in question here. Is it this bill the right thing to do for America? If so, why? If not, why not?


.

You asked why the pubs are against it "other then to just say no". The implication there is that just saying no is wrong. I am saying that it would be stupid to expect anything less after what the democrats have pulled.

If I have a case with a particular law firm and screw them over in one case, I wouldn't expect them to be cooperative at the bargaining table on the next case.

[Gtrght77]

I really don't understand how the democrats can have the nerve to expect cooperation on ANYTHING after betraying the taxpayers and railroading the healthcare bill through via dirty tactics. You don't pull some sh*t like that and then turn around next week and say "JUST KIDDING! LET'S BE FRIENDS!"

You mean the same way Bush passed his tax cuts for the rich?

[Gtrght77]

I think it is mostly because bank lobbyists are fighting hard to keep the Gov from regulating the derivative transactions. If they do the Banks will lose billions.

[Nevada_Ballin]

You asked why the pubs are against it "other then to just say no". The implication there is that just saying no is wrong. I am saying that it would be stupid to expect anything less after what the democrats have pulled.

If I have a case with a particular law firm and screw them over in one case, I wouldn't expect them to be cooperative at the bargaining table on the next case.

I see, the old "two wrongs make a right" theory.

.

[sideoutshu]

I see, the old "two wrongs make a right" theory.

.

The old "if you want to have a reputation as an honest and trustworthy negotiator you conduct yourself as such" theory.

[Nevada_Ballin]

The old "if you want to have a reputation as an honest and trustworthy negotiator you conduct yourself as such" theory.

lol.. you cannot use "honest and trustworthy" when we are talking about politicians. These guys have played cut throat with each other for centuries.

Back to my original question. Is this BILL good for America right now?


.

[theanalogkid]

Does it get rid of Affirmative Action in Lending?

Does it take away Fannie Mae's Credit Line to the Treasury?

Does it get rid of FDIC?

Does it stop the Fed from being the lender of last resort? (Probably should just abolish it, but that's not going to happen)

If the answer is no, then the elements that cause moral hazard in the banking industry are still there. In which case nothing will change. Regulating banks more isn't going to solve the problem.

Let's not forget the bubble started when the Fed kept rates at record lows for too long. I think Congress is pointing the fingers at the wrong people.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Does it get rid of Affirmative Action in Lending?

Does it take away Fannie Mae's Credit Line to the Treasury?

Does it get rid of FDIC?

Does it stop the Fed from being the lender of last resort? (Probably should just abolish it, but that's not going to happen)

If the answer is no, then the elements that cause moral hazard in the banking industry are still there. In which case nothing will change. Regulating banks more isn't going to solve the problem.

Let's not forget the bubble started when the Fed kept rates at record lows for too long. I think Congress is pointing the fingers at the wrong people.

So no good whatsoever can come from this bill if all of those things are not there?


.

[kevin21boston]

The government needs to stay out of Wall St.

Lest we forget, everything blew up because everybody and their mother, literally, became speculators and blew up the housing market.

What followed with the bailouts, bank runs, bank failures, etc was collateral damage. Any argument other than this is false. This is what happened.

[Gtrght77]

The government needs to stay out of Wall St.

Lest we forget, everything blew up because everybody and their mother, literally, became speculators and blew up the housing market.

What followed with the bailouts, bank runs, bank failures, etc was collateral damage. Any argument other than this is false. This is what happened.

I don't think the housing market was the major cause of the economic crash.

Something is fishy about it all. It seems as if WAMU was purposely crashed by other banks. The banks that were big before are now HUGE. The only people really screwed by all of this were the middle class.

[Nevada_Ballin]

The government needs to stay out of Wall St.

Lest we forget, everything blew up because everybody and their mother, literally, became speculators and blew up the housing market.

What followed with the bailouts, bank runs, bank failures, etc was collateral damage. Any argument other than this is false. This is what happened.

I think this bill is designed to combat all of that, especially gov bailouts.... but i dunno how effectively it's written to do so.


.

[theanalogkid]

So no good whatsoever can come from this bill if all of those things are not there?


.

What are they going to do, give the SEC more regulatory power? They were asleep at the wheel the entire time this stuff was going on.

Congress passes feel good legislation that ends up making the situation worse. At least they can say they did something though.

[YoungVito]

For those of you who want to have ADULT conversations about politics...check out the "Independent Voter" profile on Facebook.

Grown up conversations, about REAL conversation, along with a moderator in the case that the conversation inevitably depreciates.

Take care y'all. Gettin' my "Grown Man" on. Later.

[Nevada_Ballin]

What are they going to do, give the SEC more regulatory power? They were asleep at the wheel the entire time this stuff was going on.

Congress passes feel good legislation that ends up making the situation worse. At least they can say they did something though.

I dunno.. you're supposed to be one of the "financial experts" in the forum here, have you read any parts of the bill in which you can form an honest opinion of what is in it as opposed to complaining about what isn't in it?


.

[theanalogkid]

Who cares if there is good stuff in it, a bad bill is a bad bill. I'd vote no if I were in Congress without hesitation. Creating yet another authority to regulate banks amongst the numerous authorities in existence isn't going to solve the problem which lies in the government, not the private sector.

Too big to fail is easy to solve. Just let them fail and let someone else buy up the assets and liquidate the rest. It's a myth that there are institutions that are too big to fail. The market didn't seem to care when Enron failed and it was the largest company in it's industry. There wasn't much of an effect of Lehman failing either. I don't think Washington gets it, and passing more regulation will only hamper job growth. (Not surprising most of the jobs are being created in the government right now, unfortunately those don't produce anything)

[resnor]

I don't think the housing market was the major cause of the economic crash.

Something is fishy about it all. It seems as if WAMU was purposely crashed by other banks. The banks that were big before are now HUGE. The only people really screwed by all of this were the middle class.

LOL. You do love a good conspiracy theory, don't you?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Who cares if there is good stuff in it, a bad bill is a bad bill. I'd vote no if I were in Congress without hesitation. Creating yet another authority to regulate banks amongst the numerous authorities in existence isn't going to solve the problem which lies in the government, not the private sector.

Too big to fail is easy to solve. Just let them fail and let someone else buy up the assets and liquidate the rest. It's a myth that there are institutions that are too big to fail. The market didn't seem to care when Enron failed and it was the largest company in it's industry. There wasn't much of an effect of Lehman failing either. I don't think Washington gets it, and passing more regulation will only hamper job growth. (Not surprising most of the jobs are being created in the government right now, unfortunately those don't produce anything)

In other words, finding out what the bill is about is not worth your time, you're just categorically against it for the sake of being against it?

.

[theanalogkid]

In other words, finding out what the bill is about is not worth your time, you're just categorically against it for the sake of being against it?

.

I've already found out about this bill; its contents is why I do not like it.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I've already found out about this bill; its contents is why I do not like it.

Ok, what's in it that you don't like?

.

[theanalogkid]

Ok, what's in it that you don't like?

.

I already mentioned what I don't like that is in it. Creating a consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve. Give the SEC more power?, It can't even deal with what it's responsible for now. Took 3 years to bring any chargers against Goldman Sachs, a little late to the party don't you think? Financial people will outsmart them 99% of the time. Clear example of how inefficient government is.

The government's only roles should be to enforce contracts and bankruptcy, nothing else. If anything the Congress should be looking for ways to speed up the bankruptcy process for businesses that fail and to prohibit the government from bailing anyone out again and also prohibit the Fed from buying any corporate assets again.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I already mentioned what I don't like that is in it. Creating a consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve. Give the SEC more power?, It can't even deal with what it's responsible for now. Took 3 years to bring any chargers against Goldman Sachs, a little late to the party don't you think? Financial people will outsmart them 99% of the time. Clear example of how inefficient government is.

The government's only roles should be to enforce contracts and bankruptcy, nothing else. If anything the Congress should be looking for ways to speed up the bankruptcy process for businesses that fail and to prohibit the government from bailing anyone out again and also prohibit the Fed from buying any corporate assets again.

Actually I don't think 3 years is that long considering the magnitude of the crap they did.

I believe this bill has anti-bailout in it. The firms pay essentially what is a tax that goes into a fund for that purpose. If they need a bailout, they use their own money, not ours. Think of it as "bailout health insurance".



.

[theanalogkid]

Actually I don't think 3 years is that long considering the magnitude of the crap they did.

I believe this bill has anti-bailout in it. The firms pay essentially what is a tax that goes into a fund for that purpose. If they need a bailout, they use their own money, not ours. Think of it as "bailout health insurance".



.

Considering the SEC is suppose prevent things like this from occurring, I'd say they screwed up.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Considering the SEC is suppose prevent things like this from occurring, I'd say they screwed up.

Corruption happens... cops are supposed to prevent street crime but it happens anyway. That's why we have courts and such, for post-crime convictions.


.