H.R. 4173 passes House

[Stealth of Nations]

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009

"This is comprehensive legislation to overhaul regulations in the financial sector. It would establish a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate products like home mortgages, car loans and credit cards, give the Treasury Department new authority to place non-bank financial firms, like insurance companies into receivership and regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market."

See how your Rep. voted.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll968.xml

[anonymous171]

1. Inslee, Aye.

:woohoo: I love my rep.

[tjwash]

2. They backed off on regulating the derivitives though.

So in essence, they pulled most of the sharp teeth out of it.

[derby378]

3. Good catch

And it doesn't bode very well for the average American.

[tjwash]

5. Dems are getting their money from the same wall street lobby that the repugs are.

So it would stand to reason that they were going to give them a tunnel to squirrel away some money into. Lets see if the Senate closes the loophole now. Not holding my breath though.

I guess it's a start.

[mullard12ax7]

4. and realtors, appraisers, banks all get off

too. What a surprise, an act called the "Consumer Protection Act" that does nothing of the sort:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-votes-against-letting-judges-alter-mortgages-2009-12-11

[pampango]

6. They pulled some of the teeth, but others are still there. Progressive Caucus voted 70-3 in favor.

The industry-backed republicans voted 175-0 against the bill. They sure didn't like it, particularly the Chamber. Frank and the other progressives apparently like it, almost as much as the repubs hated it.

"President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have put considerable emphasis on the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Agency that the legislation would create. The provision was the object of some of the most intense lobbying of the entire package up until the very end. Hated by the financial industry and big business, the CFPA became the cause célèbre of liberals and consumer advocates. Ahead of the vote, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who crafted much of the legislation with the Treasury and shepherded through the House, described the package as the most significant increase of financial regulation since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal."

"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."

[tjwash]

7. It's a start, I hope.

:fingers crossed:

[clear eye]

9. Frank may belong to the "Progressive Caucus"

but he's not a "progressive" in my book. Especially not on financial matters. Remember he helped shepherd the original bailout through the House, opposing the addition of any taxpayer guarantees, bank re-regulation, Congressional oversight, or hearings w/ prominent economists.

Been following this on Bill Moyers Journal w/ last week's Elizabeth Warren segment and a segment 3 weeks ago w/ a financial sector guy whose name I can't recall.

"The industry-backed republicans" didn't like it b/c it does have some added protections for credit cards and mortgages, etc.

That doesn't mean it does one single tiny thing to decrease the likelihood of another crisis of the financial institutions. In no way does it address their incentive to speculate w/ bank investors' money. It does not begin to restore the separation between banks and brokerages, or limit or regulate credit default swaps.

That's how it managed to offend the Republicans, but still not protect us from the need to bail out the industry again. If we have to declare a financial institution bankrupt (as you call it "put {it} to death"), the problem has already caused the country grievious financial injury. The fallout from the losses investors in instruments not FDIC insured would need to take, makes that an exceedingly unlikely action to follow through on. Members of the same management can still end up running other or new banks in the future. The difficulty of pulling this trigger and the temptation of still legal potentially lucrative speculation makes it a pitifully weak disincentive to gambling w/ taxpayer money.

[clear eye]

10. On further thought---Gov't could always legally refuse to bail out troubled banks

or other large financial institutions in which case the bank would have to declare bankruptcy (and "die"). No new legislation was needed to authorize that. The reason it wasn't done this last time, and instead the ginormous bailout was given, was that the impact of the majority of huge institutions going under would have largely strangled credit, and strained the FDIC's ability to make good on insured investment. Since the time of the first bailout up to the present, these same unrepentant mega-institutions have used bailout monies not for their intended purpose of underwriting more business loans, but to make hostile takeovers of small and community banks, and grow even larger. This law does nothing to break them into smaller entities or even limit their increase in size. The next time they get themselves in a hole through still legal speculation, it will be harder, not easier, to allow them to lapse into bankruptcy.

Claiming that they needed legal authority NOT to bail out AIG, is farcically absurd. It was just a practical impossibility which this bill worsens by making the Treasury Dept. instead of an independent agency, the ultimate arbiter. The new consumer protections are nice, but not the greatest thing since sliced bread as Frank declared. They do nothing to address predatory mortgages previously issued and in the process of default, among many weaknesses.

It would be nice if you would post the source of your quoted material. Reads to me like self-congratulatory, disingenuous hype designed to mislead.

[clear eye]

8. Despite what they say, this is NOT "comprehensive legislation"

"to overhaul regulations in the financial sector". It's good as far as it goes, but does absolutely nothing to prevent bank speculation w/ investor money that could lead directly to another bailout. What it is, is terribly disappointing.