• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Extensive regulatory overhaul planned

Sandhusker

Well-known member
TSR said:
Interesting, especially the last paragraph.

Then again, had Obama and the Dems not resisted Bush's efforts to clamp down on Fannie and Freddie, the other problem never would of surfaced as there would not of been a meltdown.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Congress already has plenty of oversight and regulative authority.

Zer0 just wants to put it in the hands of the executive branch now.

The checks and balances will be removed.

The FED, which has no one watching them, theoretically should have the final say in what banks can, and cannot do................but it ain't working.

A simpler solution would be to put responsible people on the "Banking" Committees in Congress............................
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
Congress already has plenty of oversight and regulative authority.

Zer0 just wants to put it in the hands of the executive branch now.

The checks and balances will be removed.

The FED, which has no one watching them, theoretically should have the final say in what banks can, and cannot do................but it ain't working.

A simpler solution would be to put responsible people on the "Banking" Committees in Congress............................

You're exactly right, Mike. The banking committees do have a job, I would assume. I would also assume that job would be to watch over the banking industry in order to prevent problems and to promote legislation concerning that industry that would be beneficial to this country. Has that happened in the last few years? Looking at our current situation, that's a pretty obvious "NO".

The questions then beg to be asked; "Why haven't at least the banking committee chairs been removed?", and "Does it make any sense that the people that caused the mess should be involved in fixing it?" Haven't they already shown their level of competence? What does it say about the CEO's competence who leads the charge with these same people?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was scheduled to outline the administration's proposals in testimony Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. Administration officials provided details of the plan ahead of the testimony only on condition of anonymity.

Where's all that "Transparency" we were promised?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Mike said:
Congress already has plenty of oversight and regulative authority.

Zer0 just wants to put it in the hands of the executive branch now.

The checks and balances will be removed.

The FED, which has no one watching them, theoretically should have the final say in what banks can, and cannot do................but it ain't working.

A simpler solution would be to put responsible people on the "Banking" Committees in Congress............................

You're exactly right, Mike. The banking committees do have a job, I would assume. I would also assume that job would be to watch over the banking industry in order to prevent problems and to promote legislation concerning that industry that would be beneficial to this country. Has that happened in the last few years? Looking at our current situation, that's a pretty obvious "NO".

The questions then beg to be asked; "Why haven't at least the banking committee chairs been removed?", and "Does it make any sense that the people that caused the mess should be involved in fixing it?" Haven't they already shown their level of competence? What does it say about the CEO's competence who leads the charge with these same people?

All the Moonbats are hollering "Hallelujah"......... but don't realize the consequences of putting this much authority in the hands of the Executive branch.

Example: The Executive Branch specifically had Dodd put the language in that gave AIG those bonuses, then turned around and screamed because AIG gave the bonuses.

Where's the common sense nowdays? :lol:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Example: The Executive Branch specifically had Dodd put the language in that gave AIG those bonuses, then turned around and screamed because AIG gave the bonuses.


All for show for the ignorant public...nothing more. Planned this way from the get go.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Example: The Executive Branch specifically had Dodd put the language in that gave AIG those bonuses, then turned around and screamed because AIG gave the bonuses.


All for show for the ignorant public...nothing more. Planned this way from the get go.

Yep. And now they have ACORN visiting these folks at AIG and demeaning them, all the while perpetuating the media show.

I have to agree with Phil Gramm.......we ARE a country of whiners.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Why do the liberals avoid these conversations like the plague?

Why are they so partisan that they can not step up and agree when things are so obvious?

When we talked in the past about Bush and immigration, or Bush and spending or Bush and the Border patrol us conservatives took a stand against Bush.

Why is it the Liberals can not join us in standing against these idiots and their mistakes?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I think they don't because THEY JUST DON'T GET IT! :shock:
It's easier to do nothing to fix the problem except let someone
else (try to) fix it.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Why do the liberals avoid these conversations like the plague?

Why are they so partisan that they can not step up and agree when things are so obvious?

When we talked in the past about Bush and immigration, or Bush and spending or Bush and the Border patrol us conservatives took a stand against Bush.

Why is it the Liberals can not join us in standing against these idiots and their mistakes?

Mark Levin, lets you know why? Everybody needs to buy his new book "Liberty and Tyranny"

In this interview he speaks about regulations and control by Liberals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1GyuRrtYwk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F24%2Fred-red-meat-mark-levin-on-statism-and-limbaugh-as-conservative-leader%2F&feature=player_embedded
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If any of you watched some of the Congressional Hearings- it is the bankers- and financial and investment institutions executives that have been asking for more rules, regulations, required transparency, and oversight so they don't get caught in a mess like this Bush Bust again...

The program the administration was presenting to Congress will also include a recommendation for creation of a systemic risk regulator, possibly at the Federal Reserve, to monitor risks to the entire system.
Every one of the 7 Major Banks that was in the hearings asked for a national risk regulator- and even went further thinking there needs to be a Global risk regulator- because the private ratings companies have shown they put GREED over ETHICS and can be bought by the highest bidder- and failed miserably on rating the risk on much of this debt....

The administration is proposing that hedge funds and other private pools of capital, including private equity funds and venture capital funds, be required to register with the SEC if their assets exceeded a certain size. The threshold amount has yet to be determined, officials said.

The proposal on credit default swaps and other derivatives would require the markets on which they are traded to be regulated for the first time and for the buying and selling of these instruments to be conducted in a way that will foster greater oversight.

All testified that this was badly needed- more transparency on all trading including commodities- and more oversight to avoid manipulation and speculation hoarding...


I watched the hearing the other night- and both Geithner and Bernanke requested the change- for Congress to give the Fed/Treasury authority over financial institutions (like AIG) that have taken and are operating on taxpayer money....The government already has that authority over banks- but not these morphodite corporations that operate as lending and investment firms- but are not technically banks...

Sounds to me like a loophole that needs to be filled- and a way to better protect the Feds and taxpayers investment- along with all investors.... and said it was necessary to not only protect the taxpayers money, but to also put investor confidence back into the Financial/investment industry.....

And a bunch of this change they want- is laws we put in 80 years ago after the Great Depression to keep this from ever happening again--but in their misguided brilliance of thinking that they knew better now-- the politicians removed over the last 20 years- along with years of nonenforcement of anti-trust laws which allowed all these "too big to fail" corporations to come about-- and then got us into this mess...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
OT...why don't they simply require them go back to being the entity they were originally chartered to be..a bank...an insurance company, whatever, That should downsize these larger than life companies, then require them to purchase insurance just as FDIC does commercial banks and FCUA does credit unions? Nobody has ever lost a penny in an insured account.

In years past nobody would consider depositing more in one account than could be insured. Greed has not taken over and huge amounts are put into once account, company, stock or other investment instrument exposing them to great risk.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
OT...why don't they simply require them go back to being the entity they were originally chartered to be..a bank...an insurance company, whatever, That should downsize these larger than life companies, then require them to purchase insurance just as FDIC does commercial banks and FCUA does credit unions? Nobody has ever lost a penny in an insured account.

In years past nobody would consider depositing more in one account than could be insured. Greed has not taken over and huge amounts are put into once account, company, stock or other investment instrument exposing them to great risk.

Sounds like thats what they are working on- putting back some of the rules/regs like were in the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 which prevented much of these companies from operating as banks/lending/investment companies without regulation- which was essentially gutted with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act...And closing the Enron Loophole type holes and putting some regulation and transparency back into some of this wide open "casino type" trading that was allowed with the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000...

Much of the closure of the commodity and futures loopholes and putting transparency back into the markets would have been done last year if GW hadn't got the Repubs to filibuster the Act....
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Canada de-regulated the banks in 1987.

Why don't they have banking problems? :lol:

Wouldn't the US system be quite a bit more complex than the Canadian system seeing as how it would have to be much larger.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
About 10x as large! Same as the population, although Canadian banks are buying up American assets. TD is now in the US, and there was another group that bought part of another insurance company, can't remember who, I'll look.

Looks like the US could use some of the Canadian banking philosophy, without the bailouts!
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was scheduled to outline the administration's proposals in testimony Thursday before the House Financial Services Committee. Administration officials provided details of the plan ahead of the testimony only on condition of anonymity.

Where's all that "Transparency" we were promised?

I don't see the big deal here Mike. I mean he is going to outline the proposals on Thusday. If they are going to "leak" all the details beforehand, he might as well not show up. The transparency comes on Thursday.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
OT...why don't they simply require them go back to being the entity they were originally chartered to be..a bank...an insurance company, whatever, That should downsize these larger than life companies, then require them to purchase insurance just as FDIC does commercial banks and FCUA does credit unions? Nobody has ever lost a penny in an insured account.

In years past nobody would consider depositing more in one account than could be insured. Greed has not taken over and huge amounts are put into once account, company, stock or other investment instrument exposing them to great risk.

Sounds like thats what they are working on- putting back some of the rules/regs like were in the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 which prevented much of these companies from operating as banks/lending/investment companies without regulation- which was essentially gutted with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act...And closing the Enron Loophole type holes and putting some regulation and transparency back into some of this wide open "casino type" trading that was allowed with the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000...

Much of the closure of the commodity and futures loopholes and putting transparency back into the markets would have been done last year if GW hadn't got the Repubs to filibuster the Act....

So if these are the answers they are looking at then does this mean we can trace this problem back to Clinton when he signed the bill to repeal the Glass-Steagall act?

Why do they just keep it simple and repeal the repeal of the Glass-Steagall? Could it be they want to obtain more power and push more socialism, instead of just doing what worked in the past?
 

Mike

Well-known member
TSR said:
Mike said:
Canada de-regulated the banks in 1987.

Why don't they have banking problems? :lol:

Wouldn't the US system be quite a bit more complex than the Canadian system seeing as how it would have to be much larger.

Larger doen't mean more complex........... :roll:

Just add a few more zeroes to the balance sheets.
 
Top