Republicans On Wrong Course On Financial Regulation Bill - It Will Show In November!

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So what exactly does this financial reform bill do and how will it stop from what happened from happening again? Those are the questions I am looking to be answered. Everybody is either bitching about Republicans opposing it or claiming the bill is bad because it was written by Chris Dodd, but can anybody actually answer the questions I have proposed?

 

[mudwhistle]

As usual the Republicans are protecting the thieves on Wall Street.

And it was Phil Gramm who wrote the legislation that caused the collapse, which was caused by a derivative bubble, not the housing industry.

You mean folks like George Soros? Those derivative speculators?

Strange how people like Rahm Emanuel and Obama's Treasury Sec. Mr. Geitner know alot of those thieves intimately.

But it's nice to see that although Obama and friends are rich as fuck you still can play the class-warfare card so easily.

Obama "rich as fuck"? From two books?

He has less than half of what Palin has. Of course, she wrote a book too. It's called, "Going Rogue by Lynn Vincent".

You're right....there are various degrees of being rich as fuck

 

[mudwhistle]

GWB & the other repugs had the Presidency, House & Senate for years but did NOTHING to nip this problem early on.

You're right. They didn't nip this in the bud early on. But they also didn't cause the problem in the first place.

Now how does more regulation benefit average Americans?

How do i benefit if the Federal Government takes punative regulatory action against Wall Street?

Laws/regulations will not and can not fix problems caused by dishonest and unethical practices. Laws/regulation will not and can fix problems caused by people who ignore laws.

Punishing the rich doesn't benefit me. Natural law will punish the wealthy more than government ever could. How "punishing" the wealthy and regulating them help the homeless guy on the street? How does it benefit you? Tell me.

It's amazing that no matter how many regulations are passed, No matter how many laws Congress creates, there are still dishonest people who run businesses. There is still financial downturn. People will still take risks and suffer for it.

These "regulations" do absolutely nothing but burden the system and make a pathetic attempt to "fix" the symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

Please....somebody explain what this has to do with jobs growth.

Instead of this constant motherfucking class-warfare....when is his prick gonna start working towards job creation other then feeding money into worthless bureaucracies.

This is just another piece of the puzzle. They're undergoing a takeover [change] of the private sector ala Hugo Chavez and this is just another step of it.

 

[Harry Dresden]

what astounds me is libtards always saying Republicans fucked it up,, but then of course it's libtards who set the rules in Michigan, California, New Yawk, and New Jersey, Ohio,, and on and on.. Who runs Texas???

Liberals run Texas?

they have run California for quite a while now....working real good.....4 to 48 in education since the 70's.....

 

[Vanquish]

ohhhh Cali???? come out and plaaaaaaaaay

Still there, hun? Great job running away when you got skewered.

 

[WillowTree]

is anybody watching c span?? bawney fwank and geithner both proclaim they had no responsibility to oversee squat, what a cop out.

 

[boedicca]

Translation: They want power without accountability


Both pair of hands are Very Dirty.

 

[Vast LWC]

The bill creates a moral hazard by making an implied guarantee by the government. It will produce more Fan/Fred situations. It would be vastly more efficacious to divide some or all of these giants up into companies "small enough to fail." That is the primary reason Rs don't like it. I expect that to be the Republican recommendation IF they don't get rolled.

Please show us exactly where there is an "implied guarantee" in the bill.

Be sure to give us the exact location.

As far as I can tell, the government is making the banks set up a system between themselves to stop individual banks from failing.

 

[Vast LWC]

You're right. They didn't nip this in the bud early on. But they also didn't cause the problem in the first place.

Now how does more regulation benefit average Americans?

How do i benefit if the Federal Government takes punative regulatory action against Wall Street?

Laws/regulations will not and can not fix problems caused by dishonest and unethical practices. Laws/regulation will not and can fix problems caused by people who ignore laws.

However, Laws/Regulations allow them to prosecuted when they do break the law, thus providing a disincentive to do so...

...otherwise known as the basis of the entire American legal system.

Shall we remove the laws that punish murder too because they're "too restrictive"?

Punishing the rich doesn't benefit me. Natural law will punish the wealthy more than government ever could. How "punishing" the wealthy and regulating them help the homeless guy on the street? How does it benefit you? Tell me.

How is regulating the market so massive bubbles don't form and fail "punishing the rich".

Is regulating murder through the police "punishing" would-be murderers?

It's amazing that no matter how many regulations are passed, No matter how many laws Congress creates, there are still dishonest people who run businesses. There is still financial downturn. People will still take risks and suffer for it.

These "regulations" do absolutely nothing but burden the system and make a pathetic attempt to "fix" the symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself.

That's a bunch of utter and complete crap.

Just because people keep finding loopholes in order to commit fraud certainly doesn't mean we should do away with the laws altogether.

Are you just spinning, or do you really believe that crap?

 

[Vanquish]

The bill creates a moral hazard by making an implied guarantee by the government. It will produce more Fan/Fred situations. It would be vastly more efficacious to divide some or all of these giants up into companies "small enough to fail." That is the primary reason Rs don't like it. I expect that to be the Republican recommendation IF they don't get rolled.

Please show us exactly where there is an "implied guarantee" in the bill.

Be sure to give us the exact location.

As far as I can tell, the government is making the banks set up a system between themselves to stop individual banks from failing.

Apparently the concept of "implied" is lost on you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Apparently the concept of "implied" is lost on you.

If it is "implied" then there must be some specific language that does the "implying".

Otherwise there is no "implication".

Apparently the concept of "proving your point" is lost on you.

 

[Vanquish]

Apparently the concept of "implied" is lost on you.

If it is "implied" then there must be some specific language that does the "implying".

Otherwise there is no "implication".

Apparently the concept of "proving your point" is lost on you.

Not really. I prove myself hourly on this forum to no avail because thick-headed people don't want to admit plain truths. I tell myself every day that I wont come back to USMB, but my forum-posting addiction takes over.

BTW, you didn't ask for the language amounting to the implication...you asked where the implied proposition WAS in the bill. Be more careful with your wording next time.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not really. I prove myself hourly on this forum to no avail because thick-headed people don't want to admit plain truths. I tell myself every day that I wont come back to USMB, but my forum-posting addiction takes over.

BTW, you didn't ask for the language amounting to the implication...you asked where the implied proposition WAS in the bill. Be more careful with your wording next time.

LOL, will do.

 

[Vanquish]

Just busting your balls man. I have to ...to keep my sanity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dodd in charge of financial reform is like hiring Hannibal Lecter as a chef.

 

[Vast LWC]

Just busting your balls man. I have to ...to keep my sanity.

All good, I took it in the spirit it was given, and I was busting your balls back.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Countrywide Dodd writing a financial reform bill.

Are banks still allowed to claim Senators as wholly-owned subsidiaries?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have to appreciate Progressive Ironic Humor:

FDR presiding over worst economy in human history, eclipising the 7 Biblical Lean Years is "Great"

Racist redneck peckerwood "I'll have them ******* voting Democratic for 200 years" LBJ is a Civil Rights hero

and Countrywide Dodd writes a Financial Reform Bill.

LOL

 

[Vast LWC]

You have to appreciate Progressive Ironic Humor:

FDR presiding over worst economy in human history, eclipising the 7 Biblical Lean Years is "Great"

FDR changed the worst economy in US history into the best economy in US history, and he used socialism to do it.

Of course he had a bunch of help and it took a long time, but however you want to slice it, that is the truth.

You can say WW II was responsible, but I notice war didn't do much for the Bush presidency.

And that amazing economy lasted for decades.

Racist redneck peckerwood "I'll have them ******* voting Democratic for 200 years" LBJ is a Civil Rights hero

and Countrywide Dodd writes a Financial Reform Bill.

LOL

Never much liked LBJ myself, though one must admit, he did whip that congress into voting for the bill in question.

And if you want to eliminate all the people in government who made mistakes when it comes to the housing collapse, there'd be no-one left to write any legislation at all, so it might as well be Chris Dodd.

 

[American Horse]

The bill creates a moral hazard by making an implied guarantee by the government. It will produce more Fan/Fred situations. It would be vastly more efficacious to divide some or all of these giants up into companies "small enough to fail." That is the primary reason Rs don't like it. I expect that to be the Republican recommendation IF they don't get rolled.

Please show us exactly where there is an "implied guarantee" in the bill.

Be sure to give us the exact location.

As far as I can tell, the government is making the banks set up a system between themselves to stop individual banks from failing.

Apparently the concept of "implied" is lost on you.

Creating a $50 (to begin with) billion dollar fund for bailouts for companies that are considered too big to fail amounts to an implicit guarantee that they will not be allowed to fail without government intervention. That guarantee will cause investors to rely on that implied guarantee, and like Fan and Fred these companies will grow faster than those without that guaranteee, thus they will be presumed to be already too big to fail. They know it, the Congress knows it, and anyone who does business will recognize it.

Notice that Fanny and Freddy are still intact, and remain too big to fail with their implicit guarantee, such that they aren't even mentioned in the legislation. They were and are GSEs (government Sponsored Enterprises) which endowed them with an implied guarantee which was the subject of warnings even into the late nineties.

It does not matter that the funding for that guarantee will come in part from the companies themselves, the guarantee is the same.

The Republicans would prefer to take action to see that they don't get that big in the first place, and a good way to accomplish that is to dismember them now.

im·ply - 1 obsolete : enfold, entwine
2 : to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3 : to contain potentially
4 : to express indirectly <his silence implied consent>

EDIT: Apr 16, 2010

By Major Garrett - FOXNews.com

<SNIP>
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, offered mute praise for the administration&#8217;s formal dismissal of a so-called bailout fund.

&#8220;I appreciate the Obama administration&#8217;s recognition of the need to substantively improve this bill,&#8221; McConnell said from Louisville. &#8220;And I hope we can work with them to close the remaining bailout loopholes that put American taxpayers on the hook for financial institutions that become &#8216;too big to fail.&#8217;&#8221;

The administration has never been a fan of the bailout reserve fund, a mechanism in both the House-passed bill and legislation passed out of the Senate Banking Committee. The House passed it as a populist move to tax big financial firms up front in case there is a need to finance a liquidation. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., included a version of the fund in the Senate bill.

Treasury Secretary Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Oct. 26, 2009, that big Wall Street firms should finance liquidations after they happen (through what&#8217;s called an ex-post fund), not build up a rainy day fund (known as an ex-ante fund) in case a failure occurs.

&#8220;Such an ex-post funding mechanism has several advantages over an ex-ante fund,&#8221; Geithner said. &#8220;Most notably, it would generate less moral hazard because a standing fund would create expectations that the government would step in to protect shareholders and creditors from losses. In essence, a standing fund would be viewed as a form of insurance for those stakeholders.&#8221;