Welcome to PatsFans.com

Sweeping bank reform bill clears House

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by reflexblue, Dec 11, 2009.

  1. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,268
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    Good, its needed, it was thought that wall street and the banking industry could police themselves, that they would be responsable, in the end they weren't. It obvious they need rules and regulations, otherwise we'll just end up back here again.

    Bank reform bill passed by House - Dec. 11, 2009

    WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The House passed legislation Friday aimed at preventing the next big financial crisis, ushering in the most sweeping set of changes to the banking regulatory system since the New Deal.

    The bill, which passed 223-202, imposes more oversight and stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms. It forces them to pay a total of as much as $150 billion into an emergency fund that could be tapped when a troubled firm needs to be taken over and broken up.

    The legislation also calls for the regulation of some derivatives and creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate products such as credit cards and mortgages.

    "The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns would be not possible -- made illegal -- under this bill," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Committee, said Wednesday as debate started on the bill. "If a company fails, it'll be put to death."

    The House rejected, by 223-208, an amendment that would have effectively killed the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, replacing it with a council of existing regulators.

    The members also voted down, by 241-188, an amendment that would have given bankruptcy judges new powers to lower balances on mortgages in order to prevent homeowners from losing their homes in foreclosure.
  2. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    Wow....honestly, this is the best thing congress has done since January....maybe even much longer (but I don't wanna go look it up!:D)

    My VERY favorite part is.....

    "The members also voted down, by 241-188, an amendment that would have given bankruptcy judges new powers to lower balances on mortgages in order to prevent homeowners from losing their homes in foreclosure."

    If a business has to die, so does a home owner...figuratively speaking of course!

    If I'd have guessed which way congress would vote on the mortgage part, I would have said they'd pass an amendment to lower mortgages...which would have been the stupidest thing congress has done in .... well days anyway!
  3. MrSparkle

    MrSparkle Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    From what you have posted I'm also in agreement. Seems like it might be some good legislation. I'll need to read a bit more but on the surface it looks good.
  4. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,268
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    For the last fifteen or twenty years its been like a giant ponsi scheme
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    And when it came time for that house of card to fall....our gov't gave them OUR money to bail them out.

    Think about how ridiculous that is!
  6. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,268
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +58 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I don't want to type that much but just think about how insane these two example's are:

    Crack head says and ad saying anyone will be approved for a mortgage.

    Crack head inquires about mortgage, mortgage co, says "well what do you have for collateral"

    Crack head says "my pipe and an old computer"

    Mortgage co. rep says "no problem just sign here and we'll take care of the rest"

    Crack head signs. Mortgage co. bundles his bad mortgage with a lot of other good and bad loans and sells them to a bank.

    Bank doesn't know which is good and which is bad.

    Crack head smokes crack in his new crack house and doesn't pay his mortgage.

    Bank goes under....almost .....WE the people bail them out.


    Second

    A group of investers finds an I.T. stock they agree to pump money into it and steer clients towards it as a "good up and coming stock"

    Investers put money into IT stock, other investers watching the market see the stock going up and jump in.

    The orginal group sells once they think the stock is close to peaking.

    Stock goes through the floor everyone loses they're shirts except those in on the scheme.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2009
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    Yes, 2 great examples of Corp-America for you! I have a liberal side that I haven't discussed in sometime and that revolves around mega-corps. I'm all for regulation and have been for years.

    I have no idea why we ever stopped anti-trust enforcement...well, I do have an idea why the gov't says they stopped endorcing it, but I don't buy it!
  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This is a good point, PR. We are in a big mess because of very lax anti-trust enforcement. In my view the root causes are simple: politicians who take money from corporations choose not to rigorously enforce laws that would damage those corporations.

    Monopolies are a license to print money, and they suck for the consumer. Even oligopolies that act in concert are effective monopolies and we have many examples of that in the American business landscape. Telecom, media, oil, technology, etc. And it all adds up to being bad for the consumer while certain people get very, very rich.
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -13

    You know, I don't think I want to discuss with you cause I agree with you!;)

    Just kidding Strud. This is why I'm always railing against partisanship, because we can find common ground.

    The excuse our gov't uses to NOT enforce anti-trust is that the economic landscape has changed and it's a WORLD ECONOMY. They claim that to compete on a world-wide level, they can't break up huge American corporations because they'll just go elsewhere.

    It really is a perplexing dilemma for which the answers are prolly just as complicated. We absolutely agree in spirit on this topic, so mark this date in history Strudel!

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>