Dem Sens to hold press conference tomorrow at 10:30AM with head of Americans for Financial Reform

[flpoljunkie]

This is great news! Please sign their petition, if you have not already done so.

Tell the Senate to Strengthen Financial Reform Legislation and Hold Big Banks Accountable

http://capwiz.com/affil/issues/alert/?alertid=14833271

Dem Sens Hold Presser Tomorrow On Reform

3 MINUTES AGO

Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH) and Jeff Merkley (OR) will hold a press conference tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. with the head of Americans for Financial Reform.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/financial-reform-wire/?ref=fpblg#330989

[kirby]

1. The Senate bill is watered down...

Once again the Senate sucks. While publicly they have been complaining about the Republicans obstruction, they still have watered down the bill to appease both Republicans and big corporate interests. Unlike the House bill, the Senate doesnt bother to eliminate/tightly regulate most of the stuff that got us into the last mess. Instead the Senate bills relies on 'transparency'. It seems to me like saying murder is okay as long as you disclose it within the fine print of a document somewhere.

[ClarkUSA]

2. "watered down the bill to appease both Republicans and big corporate interests"?? I don't think so.

Here are the facts about the Senate bill without the spin:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/FinancialReformDiscussionDraft111009.pdf

[kirby]

3. That is an older version...

Note the draft PDF file is from Nov 2009. Since then, lots of teeth have been removed and things negotiated away.

[flpoljunkie]

4. The devil is indeed in the details. We need to watch what happens very carefully.

This is the email Americans for Financial Reform is emailing your senators. (Emphasis mine.)

Senator Dodd has proposed a new financial reform bill called the “Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.” This bill needs to be strengthened to ensure that we protect consumers from abusive financial products and rein in Wall Street. This is the moment to ensure our economy gets back on track. We must prevent more bailouts and economic meltdowns.

Please get to work on financial reform right away! We cannot delay any longer. It has already been a year and a half since the financial meltdown.

Please work to strengthen the bill as follows:

- Create a truly independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The bill allows a “council of regulators” to overturn decisions made by the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This council will dominated by the institutions that failed consumers in the past, and the CFPA shouldn’t be beholden to them.

- Regulate All Financial Companies. The CFPA should have enforcement authority over all financial companies, no matter what size they are.

- End the Casino Economy. The bill should more clearly and effectively regulate all Wall Street’s trades, including shadow markets, without loopholes that undermine these rules.

- Prevent More Bailouts and End “Too Big to Fail.” Wall Street banks must not be allowed to be too big to fail, nor should they be allowed to take reckless risks that the public ends up paying for.

http://capwiz.com/affil/issues/alert/?alertid=14833271

[flpoljunkie]

5. Who makes up Americans for Financial Reform?

Our Coalition

Americans for Financial Reform is an unprecedented group of national and state organizations that have joined together to fix our financial sector and make sure it’s working for all Americans.

National Organizations

http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/about/our-coalition/

A New Way Forward
AARP
Accountable America
Adler and Colvin
AFL-CIO
AFSCME
Alliance For Justice
American Family Voices
American Income Life Insurance
Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.
Americans for Fairness in Lending
American Sustainable Business Council
Americans United for Change
Business for Shared Prosperity
Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc.
Campaign for America’s Future
Campaign Money
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Economic and Policy Research
Center for Economic Progress
Center for Responsible Lending
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center of Concern
Change to Win
Clean Yield Asset Management
Coastal Enterprises Inc.
Color of Change
Common Cause
Communications Workers of America
Community Development Transportation Lending Services
Community Law Center
Consumer Action
Consumer Association Council
Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Watchdog
Consumers Union
Corporation for Enterprise Development
CREDO
CTW Investment Group
Demos
Economic Policy Institute
Essential Action
Green America
Greenlining Institute
Good Business International
Help Is On the Way, Inc
HNMA Funding
Home Actions
Housing Counseling Services
Information Press
Institute for Global Communications
Institute for Policy Studies: Global Economy Project
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Institute of Women’s Policy Research
Keystone Research Center
Krull & Company
Laborers’ International Union of North America
Lake Research Partners
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
MoveOn.org Political Action
NAACP
NASCAT
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Association of Investment Professionals
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients)
National Consumers League
National Council of La Raza
National Council of Womens Organizations
National Fair Housing Alliance
National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions
National Housing Institute
National Housing Trust
National Housing Trust Community Development Fund
National NeighborWorks Association
National Peoples Action
National Workrights Institute
Next Step
OMB Watch
Opportunity Finance Network
Partners for the Common Good
National People’s Action (NPA)
PICO
Progress Now Action
Progressive States Network
Poverty and Race Research Action Council
Public Citizen
Responsible Endowments Coalition
Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law
Scam Victims United
SEIU
State Voices
Taxpayer’s for Common Sense
The Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development
The Carrots and Sticks Project
The Fuel Savers Club
The Seminal
UNET
Union Plus
United for a Fair Economy
U.S. PIRG
Unitarian Universalist for a Just Economic Community
United Food and Commercial Workers
United States Student Association
USAction
Veris Wealth Partners
Veterans Chanmber of Commerce
We The People Now
Western States Center
Woodstock Institute
Working America
World Business Academy
World Privacy Forum

[ClarkUSA]

6. Like what? Be specific. Back up your polemic w/proof. Here are some more facts from 3/23/10...

The bill would set up a council of regulators to oversee financial risk, create a process for liquidating distressed financial firms, crack down on derivatives markets, and take other steps meant to avert another financial crisis.... Obama vowed in a statement to fight to strengthen the measure and urged senators to resist efforts to water it down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62H3Q520100323

Sounds good to me... and it looks as if many of the measures after this Wall Street reform bill was voted out of committee are the same as the Nov. 2009 draft.

[flpoljunkie]

7. NYT: Simon Johnson says Sherrod Brown will introduce an amendment to put hard size cap on big banks

Senator Sherrod Brown will almost certainly have an opportunity to introduce an amendment that would implement a hard size cap on big banks. For all our futures, it is of the highest importance that this amendment succeeds.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/whats-missing-in-the-financial-rules-bill/

[flpoljunkie]

8. TPM report on meeting. No cable news coverage, of course.

Dem Sens Want To Cap The Size Of Big Banks

42 MINUTES AGO

Brian Beutler reports: Two Democratic senators, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, told reporters today they'll introduce two amendments to financial reform: One to make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a stand alone agency and another to limit the size of big financial institutions.

Brown said they want the consumer protection agency to have enforcement powers and its own budget. He said the provision is "not make or break" but it would "improve the bill."

The other amendment, according to the senators, would put an absolute ceiling of two percent of GDP on firms' non-deposit liabilities and prevent depository institutions from letting those holdings exceed 10 percent of their assets. The handful of firms that exceeded these limits would have three years to sell off enough assets to meet the requirements.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/financial-reform-wire/?ref=fpblg#331158

[ClarkUSA]

9. Dodd on MSNBC right now, saying "We're going to get it done." Talking about derivatives now....

... Wall Street whining that the regulations on derivatives "too tough". :cry:

[flpoljunkie]

10. MSNBC has chyron saying 'White House thinks Lincoln's derivatives bill too tough'

This was up while Andrea Mitchell was interviewing Christ Dodd. Hope that is not true.

[ClarkUSA]

11. What's their proof? Mrs. Alan Greenspan asked Dodd about "some have said" and he blew her off.

Apparently, "some" unnamed sources are trying to stir up trouble via their media whore contacts. Probably Republican friends of her Republican hubby.... I have yet to see or hear the WH say anything of the sort.

Quite the contrary. Here are the facts :

"Obama: I'll Veto Financial Reform Without Derivatives Regulation" (April 16, 2010)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/obama-ill-veto-financial-_n_540817.html


"Senate panel approves tougher derivatives rules" (Today)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4351991

[flpoljunkie]

12. The proof is in the pudding. We will soon see whether the WH thinks her derivatives goes too far

[ClarkUSA]

13. "Obama: I'll Veto Financial Reform Without Derivatives Regulation" (April 16, 2010)

In the meantime, we should look at the facts, not listen to non-sourced media whore rumor that is contradictory to what President Obama said just last week when he warned Congress not to "water down" the bill:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/obama-ill-veto-financial-_n_540817.html

Meanwhile, the bill is moving forward with strict derivatives reform that Wall Street thinks is "too tough":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4351991

"Proof is in the pudding"is a meaningless phrase here because it's Congress that writes any bill that the President will sign, so the onus lies on the Dempcratic caucus right now. Obama is already on record as warning of bank lobbyists and warning Congress not to "water down the bill" so it's hard to take a non-sourced news banner seriously.

[flpoljunkie]

14. Yes, I've read that, too. We will soon see. I hope President Obama means what he says.

I will sing his praises.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Of course he does. It's up to Congress to not "water down" the bill now. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

16. Talkingpointsmemo Financial Reform Wire: Reid Lauds Lincoln Derivatives Bill

Reid Lauds Lincoln Derivatives Bill

31 MINUTES AGO

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put out a statement today praising the agriculture committee for approving chairman Blanche Lincoln's derivatives regulation bill. "I commend the work of Chairwoman Lincoln and her entire committee for developing bipartisan legislation that brings sunlight to shadowy, unregulated financial markets where Wall Street makes risky bets that expose all Americans to potential harm. ... Despite the efforts of some Republicans to protect Wall Street, I am pleased that we were able to break the gridlock of obstruction in a bipartisan way and take another important step toward real reform."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/live/financial-reform-wire/?ref=fpblg#331203

[ClarkUSA]

17. So far, so good. Reid: "Despite the efforts of some Republicans to protect Wall Street..."

I am sure the White House and the leaders of the Democratic caucus know they will never have as good a chance to pass this historic reform as they do now, before the midterm elections cut their numbers in both the House and Senate.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Here's the video of President Obama's interview with John Harwood on CNBC

The question on Blanche Lincoln's derivatives legislation comes at about 8:05 and ends about 9:45.

President Obama seems to be saying that financial institutions can own these derivative desks as long as the derivative swaps are transparent and on exchanges. This is not what is in Blanche Lincolns's bill, as I understand it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1474923733&play=1

[ClarkUSA]

19. Is there a transcript? The video isn't playing well for me.

Transparency is good. Austin Goolsby was talking about this earlier today on MSNBC.

[flpoljunkie]

20. No transcript. NYT spells it out where the White House disagrees with Lincoln on derivatives.

The Agriculture Committee voted 13-8 to approve the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, the committee chairwoman. The bill would require most derivative contracts to be traded on a public exchange and to be processed, or cleared, through a third party to guarantee payment if one of the traders went out of business.

It also would require most big banks and Wall Street firms to put their derivatives trading business into a separate subsidiary, a move opposed by the banks as well as the Obama administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/22regulate.html?hp

[ClarkUSA]

21. It sounds as if the WH sees another means to the same end of regulating derivatives.

I doubt if Blanche Lincoln has cornered the market on how best to regulate Wall Street, no pun intended. ;)

As per your interpretation:

"President Obama seems to be saying that financial institutions can own these derivative desks as long as the derivative swaps are transparent and on exchanges. This is not what is in Blanche Lincolns's bill, as I understand it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1474923733&play=1"

Like I said, I'm fine with transparency. I am sure Wall Street thinks both approaches are "too tough".

[flpoljunkie]

22. Transparency is fine. I'd like derivatives to be separate entity and the big banks broken up.

Otherwise, we may well be back where we are in a few years. Bernie Sanders aid today on MSNBC that three regional Fed directors want the banks broken up.

There's a reason Dick Durbin said frankly, the banks own the place. They own both parties.

[ClarkUSA]

23. self-delete n/t

[ClarkUSA]

24. There will no longer be "too big to fail" under the Wall Street reform bill and best of all...

... not a dime of taxpayer money is involved in the proposed $50B fund that Wall Street has to put up as collateral against another crisis. As for your wanting "derivatives to be separate entity" -- exactly how is Lincoln's bill's approach the only or best way to prevent going "back where we are in a few years"? Transparency will do wonders in conjunction with the other measures in the bill that I outlined here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=274236&mesg_id=274404

Nevertheless, since Lincoln's bill has passed out of committee successfully and Reid has given it his approval, it is now up to Congress not to "water it down" - as President Obama said last week - in the face of the predictable Republican ploy of obstruct and delay. The WH wants a bill to sign before the midterm elections change the Congressional vote calculus and they are signalling to Congress they want the final product to be tough enough, so the Democratic caucus --coupled with a very able PR push and behind-the-scenes vote persuasion by President Obama -- need to do just that and send the bill to a final vote soon so they can tackle climate change and immigration reform, among other pressing issues, before the midterm elections change the odds of passing legislation forever.

Folks here - as well as the NYT's Krugman - panned TARP II and the stimulus plan because every naysayer seemed to think they knew better than President Obama and his economic team (specifically, that meant Geithner and Summers). So far, both programs have been deemed successes by any proven economic measure at preventing the U.S. economy from entering a Second Great Depression. All signs now point to a recovery from what many have called the "Great Recession" which was bequeathed to President Obama by BushCo. Thus, I am reasonably certain that Team Obama knows more about how to prevent another Wall Street meltdown better than anyone here or on the internet in general or any of the talking heads that host/guest on corporate media whore's news programs.

[flpoljunkie]

26. There will be 'Too Big To Fail' under Dodd's bill because the banks will remain 'too big.'

Nothing in Dodd's bill will change that.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Wrong. Sen. Dodd & Austan Goolsbee said on MSNBC today that there'll no longer be "too big to fail".

<<There will be 'Too Big To Fail' under Dodd's bill because the banks will remain 'too big.'>>

It's a little more complicated than that. In fact, Austin Goolsbee has described what is in the bill that prevents another taxpayer-funded "too big to fail" bailout repeatedly.

Here are the facts about the Wall Street reform bill as per White House Ecominic Advisor Austan Goolsbee during an interview with PBS regarding derivatives:

GERSH: You talked about issues that could blow up the financial world. A lot of people have looked at the issue of too big to fail. And this legislation that you've proposed is aimed at stopping this problem of too big to fail banks. A lot of people have looked at it and said that when it comes to a crisis, in the event, regulators have historically never wanted to risk a very large institution failing for fear that it would undermine confidence. How do you get at that problem? How do you solve an historical problem?

GOOLSBEE: I'd say you go at it two ways. It's important to do it two ways. The first is the bill explicitly outlaws bailouts of that sense. You can't prop up a company. It absolutely requires if the company comes to failure, they have to be either liquidated or broken up into pieces and sold off with the management fired in the shareholders wiped out. So the first is you show the company that there are going to be consequences and that they cannot be propped up in the traditional bailout sense. And then on the second, you go at all of the ways in which these big financial institutions threaten to take down their neighbors and their other counter parties as they're called, derivatives being one of the most important. So derivatives, while being esoteric, if one company goes down, then all the companies that are connected with it threaten to go down. And if you sever that link, which is the fundamental of what the president is advocating, you make it easier to let the one guy go down without blowing up the system.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/white_house_economic_adviser_austan_goolsbee_100416

Even Standard & Poor's understands what the financial reform bill means to its clients....

The giant credit rating agency Standard & Poor's issued a stark warning Tuesday to creditors of Citigroup and Bank of America, two firms that up until now had been considered "Too Big To Fail". The message: We're not so sure the U.S. government will bail them out again next time...
now, Standard & Poor's is saying, the rules seem to be changing: "The outlook revision reflects our increased uncertainty about the U.S. government's willingness to provide additional extraordinary support to highly systemically important financial institutions in a way that benefits debt holders," the agency announced. "We previously stated our belief that the extraordinary support was temporary. We believe markets are beginning to stabilize and the U.S. government is seeking ways to reduce the potential for moral hazard and systemic risk associated with large financial institutions."

So more than a year after a reckless Wall Street nearly brought down the U.S. economy, it appears the Obama administration and Congress have persuaded at least one credit-rating agency that taxpayers won't be there to support megabanks next time they screw up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/no-longer-too-big-to-fail_n_456028.html

Goolsbee furthered that the Dodd plan should be passed to make sure that "too big to fail" never happens again and stated that a special tax should be imposed on the banks to compensate the government for the guarantees... It is now clear that President Obama, buoyed by his recent successes, is going to try to raise capital by exacting a special tax on the banks.

http://www.bestcashcow.com/the_economy/article/jrodgers/austan-goolsbee-goes-on-attack-against-banks-on-cnbc

[flpoljunkie]

29. Because Dodd and Goolsbee said it does not make it so.

[ClarkUSA]

30. In the PBS interview, Goolsbee explicitly explained how the bill would prevent "too big to fail".

It's obvious that you don't want to acknowledge the truth of what he's saying, even though I offered well-sourced factual quotes and you continue to offer simple polemic with no proof to back any of it up. I suppose Standard and Poor's don't know what they're talking about, either? :eyes:

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, so I will repeat the facts again in the hope you will either acknowledge them or offer proof otherwise to refute Goolsbee's learned analysis of the Wall Street reform bill:

Here are the facts about the Wall Street reform bill as per White House Ecominic Advisor Austan Goolsbee during an interview with PBS regarding derivatives:

GERSH: You talked about issues that could blow up the financial world. A lot of people have looked at the issue of too big to fail. And this legislation that you've proposed is aimed at stopping this problem of too big to fail banks. A lot of people have looked at it and said that when it comes to a crisis, in the event, regulators have historically never wanted to risk a very large institution failing for fear that it would undermine confidence. How do you get at that problem? How do you solve an historical problem?

GOOLSBEE: I'd say you go at it two ways. It's important to do it two ways. The first is the bill explicitly outlaws bailouts of that sense. You can't prop up a company. It absolutely requires if the company comes to failure, they have to be either liquidated or broken up into pieces and sold off with the management fired in the shareholders wiped out. So the first is you show the company that there are going to be consequences and that they cannot be propped up in the traditional bailout sense. And then on the second, you go at all of the ways in which these big financial institutions threaten to take down their neighbors and their other counter parties as they're called, derivatives being one of the most important. So derivatives, while being esoteric, if one company goes down, then all the companies that are connected with it threaten to go down. And if you sever that link, which is the fundamental of what the president is advocating, you make it easier to let the one guy go down without blowing up the system.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/white_house_economic_adviser_austan_goolsbee_100416

Even Standard & Poor's understands what the financial reform bill means to its clients....

The giant credit rating agency Standard & Poor's issued a stark warning Tuesday to creditors of Citigroup and Bank of America, two firms that up until now had been considered "Too Big To Fail". The message: We're not so sure the U.S. government will bail them out again next time...
now, Standard & Poor's is saying, the rules seem to be changing: "The outlook revision reflects our increased uncertainty about the U.S. government's willingness to provide additional extraordinary support to highly systemically important financial institutions in a way that benefits debt holders," the agency announced. "We previously stated our belief that the extraordinary support was temporary. We believe markets are beginning to stabilize and the U.S. government is seeking ways to reduce the potential for moral hazard and systemic risk associated with large financial institutions."

So more than a year after a reckless Wall Street nearly brought down the U.S. economy, it appears the Obama administration and Congress have persuaded at least one credit-rating agency that taxpayers won't be there to support megabanks next time they screw up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/no-longer-too-big-to-fail_n_456028.html

Goolsbee furthered that the Dodd plan should be passed to make sure that "too big to fail" never happens again and stated that a special tax should be imposed on the banks to compensate the government for the guarantees... It is now clear that President Obama, buoyed by his recent successes, is going to try to raise capital by exacting a special tax on the banks.

http://www.bestcashcow.com/the_economy/article/jrodgers/austan-goolsbee-goes-on-attack-against-banks-on-cnbc

[flpoljunkie]

31. If the banks are not broken up, they will be 'too big to fail.' We obviously disagree on this.

Having four banks hold 50% of all our mortgages and two-thirds of our credit cards is 'too big to fail.'

'Frankly, the banks do own the place,' and it shows.

Though hope springs eternal.

I found this a good read on Obama's speech tomorrow.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/roosevelt-or-hoover-the-m_b_546623.html

[ClarkUSA]

32. That's false polemic. You keep ignoring what's in the bill that prevents "too big to fail". Why?

Your rhetoric is not only baseless but it reveals that you have not read what's in the bill nor do you have any credible proof of your claims that counter the facts I have offered. You can continue to repeat your opinions over and over again, but I must tell you that neither you or they make much sense in light of these facts about the Wall Street reform bill as explained by White House Economic Advisor Austan Goolsbee during an interview with PBS about derivatives:

GERSH: You talked about issues that could blow up the financial world. A lot of people have looked at the issue of too big to fail. And this legislation that you've proposed is aimed at stopping this problem of too big to fail banks. A lot of people have looked at it and said that when it comes to a crisis, in the event, regulators have historically never wanted to risk a very large institution failing for fear that it would undermine confidence. How do you get at that problem? How do you solve an historical problem?

GOOLSBEE: I'd say you go at it two ways. It's important to do it two ways. The first is the bill explicitly outlaws bailouts of that sense. You can't prop up a company. It absolutely requires if the company comes to failure, they have to be either liquidated or broken up into pieces and sold off with the management fired in the shareholders wiped out. So the first is you show the company that there are going to be consequences and that they cannot be propped up in the traditional bailout sense. And then on the second, you go at all of the ways in which these big financial institutions threaten to take down their neighbors and their other counter parties as they're called, derivatives being one of the most important. So derivatives, while being esoteric, if one company goes down, then all the companies that are connected with it threaten to go down. And if you sever that link, which is the fundamental of what the president is advocating, you make it easier to let the one guy go down without blowing up the system.

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/white_house_economic_adviser_austan_goolsbee_100416

Standard & Poor's understands what the financial reform bill means to its clients....

The giant credit rating agency Standard & Poor's issued a stark warning Tuesday to creditors of Citigroup and Bank of America, two firms that up until now had been considered "Too Big To Fail". The message: We're not so sure the U.S. government will bail them out again next time...
the rules seem to be changing: "The outlook revision reflects our increased uncertainty about the U.S. government's willingness to provide additional extraordinary support to highly systemically important financial institutions in a way that benefits debt holders," the agency announced. "We previously stated our belief that the extraordinary support was temporary. We believe markets are beginning to stabilize and the U.S. government is seeking ways to reduce the potential for moral hazard and systemic risk associated with large financial institutions."

So more than a year after a reckless Wall Street nearly brought down the U.S. economy, it appears the Obama administration and Congress have persuaded at least one credit-rating agency that taxpayers won't be there to support megabanks next time they screw up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/no-longer-too-big-to-fail_n_456028.html

Goolsbee furthered that the Dodd plan should be passed to make sure that "too big to fail" never happens again and stated that a special tax should be imposed on the banks to compensate the government for the guarantees... It is now clear that President Obama, buoyed by his recent successes, is going to try to raise capital by exacting a special tax on the banks.

http://www.bestcashcow.com/the_economy/article/jrodgers/austan-goolsbee-goes-on-attack-against-banks-on-cnbc

[flpoljunkie]

33. And you keep ignoring that 'too big to fail' is 'too big to exist' without bringing our economy down

Take this chart. Banks' assets have gone from 17% of GDP in 1995 to 63% today! This is insane. We really are, as The Nation's Chris Hayes said last night on Olbermann (to Lawrence O'Donnell), living in a financial oligarchy. Dick Durbin was indeed right when he said, 'Frankly, banks own the place.'

Dem Senators, show us that is not the case. Break up the banks and their overwhelming influence in the halls of Congress. Put America's families--Main Street--before Wall Street.



Senator Dodd’s financial reform bill is missing a huge piece of the puzzle. The Obama administration proposed in January to cap the size of our biggest banks going forward, so they cannot pose an even larger threat to the economy than that which we faced in September 2008.

This was a good idea, but it should have gone further. Why would anyone think that today’s size of banks is the right place to stop? After all, it is the banks at their current size who brought us such disaster. And the largest six banks have only become bigger since the crisis — actually, as a direct result of the way the Bush and Obama administrations handled the bailout.

But the most striking fact is that this part of the Volcker Rules has completely failed to make it into the Dodd bill. There is a provision in the bill that regulators can break up large banks but only “as a last resort.” This is very weak and essentially meaningless in today’s context where big banks have great political power.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/whats-missing-in-the-financial-rules-bill/

[ClarkUSA]

35. That's empty rhetoric. The facts about the bill contradict you, as I have repeatedly proved. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

37. Saying it doesn't make it so. Even the watered down Vocker rule is not in the Senate bill.

[ClarkUSA]

39. Tell that to yourself. Sen. Dodd & Austan Goolsbee knows what's in the bill far more than you. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

34. You might also want to read this article in today's New York Times in it's entirety

April 20, 2010

Financial Debate Renews Scrutiny on Banks’ Size
By SEWELL CHAN

WASHINGTON — One question has vexed the Obama administration and Congress since the start of the financial crisis: how to prevent big bank bailouts.

In the last year and a half, the largest financial institutions have only grown bigger, mainly as a result of government-brokered mergers. They now enjoy borrowing at significantly lower rates than their smaller competitors, a result of the bond markets’ implicit assumption that the giant banks are “too big to fail.”

In the sweeping legislation before the Senate, there is no attempt to break up big banks as a means of creating a less risky financial system. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials have rejected calls for doing so, saying bank size alone is not the most important threat.

Instead, the bill directs regulators to compel the largest banks to hold more capital as a cushion against losses. It sets up a procedure intended to allow big banks to fail, with the cost borne not by taxpayers but by the biggest financial institutions.

Simon Johnson, an M.I.T. professor, has been leading the intellectual charge to break up banks. In his book “13 Bankers,” he urged that no financial institution be permitted to control more than 4 percent of G.D.P. and no investment bank more than 2 percent. All six of the big financial institutions exceed those limits.

Forbidding taxpayer bailouts, as the Senate bill proposes, is worth little more than the paper it is on, Mr. Johnson argues. “When push comes to shove, will the government save these guys?” he asked. “I don’t know anybody who doesn’t think they’d save Goldman if Goldman were to suddenly run into trouble.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/business/21fail.html?ref=todayspaper

[ClarkUSA]

36. Not interested in fearmongering opinions tinged with assumptions. I prefer facts to polemic.

I suggest you watch President Obama's speech on Wall Street reform, instead of hunting up news articles containing fear-based polemic from professional naysayers that doesn't address the facts about the bill that specifically address "too big to fail" as explained quite ably by Austan Goolsbee during his interview on NPR.

[flpoljunkie]

38. I suggest you watch his speech and listen for specifics on derivatives. You won't hear any.

Leaving 'too big to fail' in place is a recipe for another disaster.

I hope the Senate improves the bill, but the odds are they will not. Remember the banks own Congress.

Frankly, it concerns me the seeming lack of Republican resistance and the prediction the bill will now apparently pass easily. What will be in the bill to stop another economic meltdown? And, why are going to let these banks continue swaps--which are nothing more than bets. That is what concerns me.

[ClarkUSA]

40. I suggest you read the Goolsbee NPR interview re: derivatives that I have quoted.

<<Leaving 'too big to fail' in place is a recipe for another disaster.>>

Why do you keep repeating this patent falsehood? I have repeatedly proved you wrong and you've repeatedly ignored the facts about what's in the bill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=274236&mesg_id=275422

BTW, in his speech today, President Obama said the Wall Street reform bill would invoke the Volcker rule, so you're wrong about that (he even pointed to the smiling Mr. Volcker sitting in the front row).

He also said there would be no more "too big to fail." The bill places limits on the size of banks and kinds of risks, so you're wrong. Again.

It's time to acknowledge reality.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Have read and heard both Goolsbee and Geither, and others not connected to the administration.

[Old Troop]

25. Please - why don't they just have their bankster friends hold the meeting

[ClarkUSA]

28. Um, President Obama has called out "bankster" lobbyists trying to stop the Wall Street reform bill.

For some, baseless polemic is so much easier to spout than the facts.

[olegramps]

42. If working class folks banked with Credit Unions maybe the Big Banks wouldn't be so big.