Senate Bill Contains Gift For Big Banks (again) WTF?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

This is reminiscent of the process that pushed Paulson's Plan through. Remember, populous outrage to the initial proposal was on the order of 10-1 in some districts to well over 100-1 in others. Congress heeded our demands and responded by blocking it. We thought we had won, but then two days later, it was all given away, after all.

Here we go again...

Despite bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that the size and interconnectedness of major financial institutions poses a grave risk to the system as a whole, Senate banking reform legislation includes a provision that will help them get even bigger.

The provision -- long desired by the big banks -- would allow them to open new branches in states regardless of local laws. This is known as de novo branching. The provision was first put forward by the Treasury Department in the financial regulation reform bill that it sent to Congress.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) initially included the provision in his bill, but removed it after a Democratic committee member, Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, asked that it be taken out.

Florida doesn't allow de novo branching and its local banks are vocal opponents of changing the law. They went to Grayson, and Grayson took their concerns to Frank, who said he had no problem removing it.

Frank told HuffPost that Treasury didn't object to his removal of their provision.

"I don't get much from pushback from Treasury," Frank said. "They need me. I don't need them."

The lobby representing small banks -- the Independent Community Bankers Association -- was glad to see the gift to big banks taken back, Steve Verdier, an ICBA senior vice president, told HuffPost.

But weeks later, when Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd unveiled his new financial reform package, the de novo language popped up again -- a verbatim copy of the Treasury language.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/senate-bill-contains-a-gi_n_373962.html



I guess my frustration lies in that victories are given away. Hard to win, fighting the good fight, this way.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Our government no longer belongs to us.

We are no longer a democracy.

We just keep saying we are.

[vaberella]

2. I thought we were a Republic with democratic ideals. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Ah, well never mind, then.

Surely representation doesn't matter when there are words to quibble over.

(You're so smart!)

[vaberella]

5. I wasn't being funny at all nor condescending.

Your response is silly and definitely hypersensitive.

[Jamastiene]

4. I thought we were too, but now, it's more like a $$$ nation. n/t

[vaberella]

6. Agreed---but the thing is we don't really have much money. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

8. Quick: What's your definition of Republic?

:shrug:

[vaberella]

9. Fine.

It's a form of government where people play some role in how the government is run by electing representative officials through voting/election---however in the US there are various ways we are allowed to excersize that power which is not only in voting but by participating in elections, writing to or for newspapers, lobbying, protesting, and the such, as related to the political process. Of course I'm using a defintion as it pertains to the US.

[Lorien]

7. ......

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :nuke:

[w4rma]

10. Language is from the Treasury proposal. Can we fire Paulson and Geithner, yet? (nt)

[midnight]

11. de novo language. They sure are tricky. They even have some in America

thinking that access to affordable health care is not affordable, and that to ask for help is a weakness. They sure are cleaver. The big banks get help and gifts-only in America.