Thread: House approves financial reform bill

To many experts, the real meat of the package is the so-called dissolution authority it would grant federal regulators to put failing massive financial institutions to death without the need of taxpayer bailouts.



Administration officials have said that the absence of such authority is what forced them to seek taxpayer money to deal with firms such as Lehman Brothers or the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending powers to rescue mega-insurer AIG.





Under the bill, the fund would collect $150 billion from the largest financial institutions to pay for the cost of winding down one of their own should another crisis strike. Critics charge that taxpayers will still be on the hook since the fund may not cover the cost of another meltdown.





“There is no bailout fund,� Frank said during debate Thursday, taking on Republican charges that the bill amounts to a perpetual bailout fund. “The bailouts of AIG and Bear Stearns, not possible, illegal under this bill. If a company fails, it will be put to death. Yes, we have death panels, but they got the death panels in the wrong bill. The death panels are in this bill. We will spend money to get rid of them in ways that will minimize damage, money that will come from the financial community.�

I like that idea. I'm not quite as sure about the consumer protection agency.



And I hate to think what the Senate will do with this.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30497.html

Critics charge that taxpayers will still be on the hook since the fund may not cover the cost of another meltdown.

And said critics can't seem to grasp that we all have "skin in the game" by virtue of being citizens in these United States, like it or not. Said critics probably put yellow ribbon magnets on their SUVs in 2003.



Use my taxes wisely and get our economic system back on track.

This bill is interesting, I will read it a couple of times. I think it does not do enough when it comes to the issue on derivatives. I also fear that credit would become more limited but at a higher cost, this will add to unemployment. It does have a provision of greater oversight for the FRB and a watered down audit. That is a start, but it isn't what we worked so hard for.



Like I said, I will over the weekend go over it a few times.



Damn worthy thread IMO!!!

I'm not sure what to think of the fact it went through without a whole lot of hysteria from the media, either pro or con. Part of me wonders "why are they sneaking this past us?" and part of me thinks, "If they aren't trying to turn it into a culture war battleground, it must be an okay bill".



No ads, no cries of "Socialism". What's going on here? I can't help but think the financial industry wouldn't have kept their mouths shut unless there were trap doors built in or maybe they already have the Senate ready to gut the thing.

It does nothing to separate banking from investment banking. It does nothing to stop fractional reserve banking. It does nothing to stop the practice of derivatives. It continues to allow derivatives to be traded and even goes as far as to allow for the regulation of them. The problems with that are to many to go over here. Unless derivatives are abolished you will never achieve sound banking.

A list of pros and cons of this bill:



https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/...0Summary-1.pdf

[quote name='Blueneck' date='14 December 2009 - 08:12 AM' timestamp='1260796364' post='79233']

A list of pros and cons of this bill:



https://salsa.democr...20Summary-1.pdf

[/quote]



I am completely dismayed with this bill. It gives even more authority to the FRB and creates a financial regulatory agency that has the power to use taxpayer monies without congressional approval. All derivatives are not on a public exchange, all positions are not marked to the market nightly with appropriate posted margin, the former 14:1 leverage limit has not been re-imposed and Glass-Steagall is not being put back together and enforced on the banks.



Basically if gives total control of our money to the oligarchs and will ensure that this nation will be tied to debt forever.

I'm against the idea that corporations should be forced to pay in the case that another company in their industry should fall. That just seems ridiculous to me.

[quote name='Feslin' date='14 December 2009 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1260816857' post='79488']

I'm against the idea that corporations should be forced to pay in the case that another company in their industry should fall. That just seems ridiculous to me.

[/quote]



I find it more repulsive that the people should be forced to pay for financial fraud.