TSR said:Interesting, especially the last paragraph.
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............................
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
Mike said:Canada de-regulated the banks in 1987.
Why don't they have banking problems? :lol:
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?
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....
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.