Welcome to PatsFans.com

Financial Reform

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    I can't help but notice the chirping crickets on the subject of financial sector reform.

    The GOP is busily and studiously avoiding too much talk about it, because it's a no-win.

    Basically the reform bill being considered right now makes the big banks responsible, as a pool, for the crazy risks taken by each individual bank. No more "Paulson put." If you take a huge risk and your bank goes down, the fund the other big banks have paid into foots the bill.

    No more taxpayer bailouts.

    The actual talking-points the GOP have been going by are not even twistings of the truth this time. They are the outright opposite of what's in the bill; Orwell - or more to the point, the Symes character - would be proud. It's doublethink, pure and simple.

    But I digress. I'd be interested to hear why our local rightists are against making Wall Street firms responsible for their own excesses, or why it's bad to make derivatives more transparent... or alternately, why it's good that the Administration and congress are actually working to reign in the "too big to fail" firms.

    What they're doing is setting up an infrastructure so we can safely allow even these big ventures to fail if they are failing - without footing the bill. They make the profits in the good times, so they have to pay their bills in the bad times.

    So let's hear it guys - are you for Wall Street reform, or against it, and why?

    PFnV
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +180 / 5 / -22

    The Economy is not my strong suit, but after watching the shenanigans of big banks lately more regulation is obviously needed.. just as long as they do not want to institute those "death panels" once again..

    Read yesterday that GM is paying back is loans.. hurrah.. the housing starts around here are up and prices have stabilized.. things are encouraging.
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +332 / 1 / -9

    Reform Congress, The Senate And This White House First Even The Mafia And Haliburton Are More Trustworthy Than Those Pigs In Washington
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2010
  4. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Thanks....




    ...so anyways......:cool:
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13

    Don't know enough about the bill. I have heard it does not cover Fannie and Freddie. I hear it has a 50B bailout fund. Neither of these appeal to me.
  6. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,836
    Likes Received:
    96
    Ratings:
    +151 / 2 / -1

    As long as it sticks to fundamental reforms -- definitions of liabilities and reserves and other basic principles -- I think reforms make sense. If the pols try to get too cute, though, and disincentivize isolated acts or favor certain groups, this will become a mess -- "Wall Street" will exploit the loopholes created and always stay a few steps ahead of Washington.
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,811
    Likes Received:
    83
    Ratings:
    +184 / 3 / -10

    Financial reform is not a "Dem vs. Republican" issue. So there are no "right vs. left" talking points. There is nothing in this about spending and increasing the deficit even further. If there were, then we'd have "talking points".

    Thus, the sound of crickets. Why PFiVA, did you actually want to make this a "Dem vs. Rep" issue?
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,069
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +332 / 1 / -9

    Reform Pelosi/Reid/Obama and all of their Closed Door Sneaky Sh!t.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +296 / 4 / -2

    Cuz it's all he knows.
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13


    I understand there is a 50B bailout fund, do you know if that is correct?
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,811
    Likes Received:
    83
    Ratings:
    +184 / 3 / -10

    The latest I heard last night was that the bailout fund is now out of the proposal. I think that's a good thing.
  12. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,363
    Likes Received:
    246
    Ratings:
    +349 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    There is not now, nor was there ever, a "bailout fund" with taxpayer money in it.

    What there is is a fund that the big banks pay into to fund the orderly wind-down of other gigantic banks - i.e., they are allowed to fail by the feds. When they do, the fund the other banks paid into makes good on claims against the bankrupt entity.

    PR, let me know where you saw that it's "out of the bill." I don't think it is, if we are talking about the same thing. This bill never HAD a taxpayer fund, it was a bank-paid fund. I don't know if it is 50B - that sounds fine as a start, but it needs to be bigger to cover a disaster of the size the government picked up last time around.

    As to right versus left: I must simply say "mea culpa". You guys are right - it is not a matter of right and left. If you're a rightist on other matters, it would be refreshing that you are actually on board on Wall Street financial reform.

    PFnV
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13

    Here is a critique from the Heritage Foundation:


    14 Fatal flaws in the Dodd bill.

    Senator Dodd?s Financial Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws | The Heritage Foundation

    Some points from the Article:



    Dodd is also setting himself up for a nice post senate career as a lobbyist to the regulatory authority. The dems are looking to take over the financial sector, reward their donors and have a lot of leverage to extract campaign donations from Financial firms.


    They will sell this turkey by using hatred of Was St to sell it.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Where is Teddy Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter when you need them? These banks need to be busted up under the anti-trust laws. They are getting bigger even since the alleged "collapse" scare of 2008 and that's keeping them in a position to extort the government for more bailouts. "Too Big to Fail" is a new mantra in American politics now. It's how the banking industry has decided to combine their forces and fight regulation to the death. Somehow they will find a wedge to drive through the People just like insurance companies did this year. This will become partisan if it hasn't already. That's how the Corporation keeps us off balance and distracted. Someone's gotta go in there with a sledge hammer and smash the monopoly in the making before it's too late (It might be already).
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    You're likely right, from the bellweathers here. Seems only 13 is towing the kneejerk line. Not a lot of sympathy for the big Wall Street banks among the rank and file.

    This ain't trust-busting, that's for sure.

    I love the talking points, but they're just good for humor value. It "creates a protected class" of big banks?

    Nooooo, it makes those big banks rely on their own commonly paid fund to clean up their disasters, and gets taxpayers off the hook. But for fu(k's sake, it's heritage, what do you expect.

    So so far, we have 1 "man on the street" rightist thinking partisan, 1 "man on the street" centrist (yours truly) who is into the bill, and one (forgive me,) lefter-than-thou guy saying it ain't Teddy Roosevelt or Jimmy Carter, and the whole game is fixed.

    But the great mass of people in the middle seem warily picking at the edges rather than full-bore against.

    I think this bill is better than the present state of affairs. I don't think it's a panacea. Pretty par for the course for this administration.
  17. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    What is the downside to doing what Wista wants? Denying them the ability to be too big to fail is appealing on its face.
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,980
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +180 / 5 / -22

  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,106
    Likes Received:
    216
    Ratings:
    +326 / 6 / -8

    I'll let 13 or PR answer you on that one, SD. My guess is that just saying it's dangerous to the country for a bank to control more than X in assets would be a "government takeover of wall street" or whatever.

    That would also be the administration's objection, from what I can tell. All the solutions out of Washington have been incremental changes within the capitalist model, not state controls. I.e., in health care we didn't go to government-paid single-payer insurance. We went to "exchanges". On finance reform, Washington didn't just proclaim that $X billion under management is the limit. Instead they said okay, you guys clean up your own messes from now on.

    The bill DOES effectively ban the "too big to fail" excuse... but it does not prevent the growth of a bank to that status. I agree with you that it's within the purview of what's in the government's interest to do so, based on the effects on the entire economy of the big banks' failings. I don't think they wanted to have to fight the "socialism" cries all the way until November.

    PFnV
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,621
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +124 / 7 / -13

    I think Anti trust would be a pretty good idea here. Better than another power grab by the government.

    We shouldn't have banks that are 'too big to fail' who have the protections and cash of taxpayers to bail them out, look at the open checkbook that Freddie and Frannie have and they aren't even subject to the bill's provisions. This will lead them to be more reckless since they know they will be bailed out again.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>