Republicans Are Obsessed With Deregulating Wall Street

Republicans Are Obsessed With Deregulating Wall Street

So Republicans think that Dodd-Frank is Un-American. For those unfamiliar with this bill, it was the bill crafted to prevent banks from engaging in the reckless speculation that caused the 2008 crash. Of course, as soon as it was passed Wall Street lobbiests have been attacking it and making it swiss cheese, but apparently Republican candidate just want to do away with it altogether. If this isn't proof of these guys being bought out by monied interests, I don't know what is.

Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum all issued calls to repeal, dismantle, hamstring or perform political acts of torture upon Dodd-Frank -- the financial reform law designed to curb the big bank abuses that spawned the worst recession since the Great Depression. Ben Carson may have intended to join them, but was unable to make a coherent point beyond citations of the American revolution, "entrepreneurial risk-taking" and 10-cent increases in the price of soap.

Here are some of the things these clowns said about this bill:

"It's suffocating small business," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said.

It is? How?

"Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts," said Carly Fiorina, who has never held public office but was once ranked by Portfolio magazine as the 19th-worst American CEO of all time.

How Socialism starts? This is clearly a fearmongering tactic here. Oh NO! Not the Socialism bogeyman! How lazy... Just equate the bill to Socialism and instant applause...

"The big banks, they have an army of lawyers," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. "They can deal with all these things. The small banks ... they can't deal with all these regulations. … This is an outrage. We need to repeal Dodd-Frank."

A compelling case from Rubio -- except the tough rules under Dodd-Frank specifically target big banks. Small banks are explicitly carved out from them. And the definition of a "community bank" is exceptionally generous. Any bank with less than $10 billion in total assets is off the hook, nevermind the details of its loan portfolio or lending terms.

Good job Rubio. Just completely make stuff up about the bill.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- who presided over a massive housing bubble in his state that fueled the national disaster -- gave a rambling discussion appearing to call for higher capital requirements to break up big banks. But then he said this, which is completely false:

"What we ought to do is raise the capital requirements so banks aren't too big to fail," Bush said. "Dodd-Frank has actually done the opposite, totally the opposite."

Dodd-Frank has higher capital standards for giant banks than for community banks. The signal was clear. Bush wants to get rid of Dodd-Frank, even if he talks like big banks are a real problem.

More lies about the bill. But it's Bush. Is anyone surprised he'd defend big banks?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stole the show for pure, unbridled financial irrationality. He called for a return to the Gold Standard -- a policy that even hardline conservative economist Milton Friedman faults as a key driver of the Great Depression -- and heralded the economic stewardship of President Calvin Coolidge, who fed a Wall Street frenzy that eventually resulted in the 1929 stock market crash.

"The biggest lie in all of Washington and in all of politics is that Republicans are the party of the rich," said Cruz, a millionaire whose wife works at Goldman Sachs. "The truth is, the rich do great with big government. They get in bed with big government. The big banks get bigger and bigger and bigger under Dodd-Frank, and community banks are going out of business."

How does that even work? Last I checked all the biggest banks in the country were all too big to fail BEFORE Dodd-Frank was a bill.

In any case, the article signs off better than I ever could. So read that:

Dodd-Frank has its shortcomings. The big banks are, in fact, too big. But repealing the law won't fix that. If GOP presidential hopefuls really wanted to protect the public from financial excess, they'd talk about breaking up the banks, or banning federal subsidies for risky derivatives trades. Instead, they shriek "socialism!" and "small business!" and hope nobody notices the bank lobby's satisfaction.

STAFF REMINDER
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Socialism is what it is, we are already on the road to serfdom but, not yet arrived.

We have to address interventionism, the big tents aren't the answer.

We now know that for certain.

Free markets for free people.

a reply to: greencmp

So after reading this post of rhetoric and empty words, do you agree with the Republicans wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank or not?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So after reading this post of rhetoric and empty words, do you agree with the Republicans wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank or not?

Yes.

Though, in fairness, I want them to read aloud every piece of legislation ever passed and vote it up or down (preferably down).

Socio-economic and monetary interventionism along with central banking are the problem. Increasing those interventions are what you propose.

No, I'm not a crony bank defender at all but, socialism is not a viable alternative to capitalism. Unrestrained, the free market can and will recover despite the repeated blows it has suffered throughout the last century.

I would like to see Dodd-frank made tougher, but, that will never happen, due to wall street corporations political lobbying....

a reply to: greencmp

So you think what happened to our economy in the years leading up to a 2008 wasn't a bad thing and we shouldn't have ANY legislation whatsoever on the books to prevent it from happening again?

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.

In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?




It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So you think what happened to our economy in the years leading up to a 2008 wasn't a bad thing and we shouldn't have ANY legislation whatsoever on the books to prevent it from happening again?

Subsidizing real estate speculation, another form of economic interventionism, produced the result that we all saw.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm all for "deregulation" so long as theres no safety net should a bank or investment firm go bankrupt.

Of-course deregulation doesnt mean that you can cheat a customer, thats a crime regardless.

Deregulate everything but make it clear that if the bank fails, government ie the tax slave, will NOT BAIL THEM OUT.

And youll see these firms regulate themselves overnight.

The only reason why they assume so much risk now is because they know that government will come to their rescue.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: greencmp


Free markets for free people.

In a world where speculation and insider trading is the norm rather than the exception; you have the nerve to talk about free markets for free people?

It must be nice living in Mayberry with Andy and Aunt Bea....

Why, you don't want free markets?

a reply to: greencmp

So it had nothing to do with insider trading?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Democrats are obsessed with regulating every aspect of our lives. Republicans only care about big business. They both suck. Glad you realized that finally.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The problem with this solution is that if the banks fail, so do all the accounts of people that the banks manage. So you are effectively punishing customers of the bank for the banks shady practices that resulted in them going bottom up. I wouldn't be opposed to bailing out the bank's customers though.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Democrats are obsessed with regulating every aspect of our lives. Republicans only care about big business. They both suck. Glad you realized that finally.

I've always known that both Democratic and Republican parties suck. That's why I've never spent a day in my life affiliated to either one of those two parties.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Same rhetoric, different target.

They are literal geniuses when it comes to getting people to vote for the complete opposite interests they believe they are voting for. They are really convincing people that Dodd-Frank is what caused all the crap that happened before Dodd-Frank.

That is seriously some NLP BS sorcery right there. Or maybe they are just relying on the goodwill of uninformed voters. It won't work forever.

Bush warned about Fannie and Freddie years before they crashed and Barney frank said they were financial sound.

youtu.be...

Changing regulations doesn't mean no regulations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So it had nothing to do with insider trading?

Corruption is ubiquitous, its just a matter of access and concern for appearance that makes the successful trader, historically speaking.

As someone once said, "oh no, I'll rob you just like the next guy... I'll just make sure you don't know it"

The one who doesn't get caught is probably the least corrupt but, the service they provide is what matters to the market. In this case, speculative capital supply. They're not always successful.

When you intervene and centralize that process, the stakes get higher and the beneficiaries, if any, get fewer. The ultimate result is that innovation and diversity suffer and the cure is worse than the disease.

As it turns out, as for most consumer goods and services, bureaucratized supervision is counterproductive.

People forget how vital reputation is when companies seem to survive what should have been complete popular routes due to external support.

In a truly free market, reputation would be the only thing. That and satisfying consumer need most effectively.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

So after reading this post of rhetoric and empty words, do you agree with the Republicans wanting to repeal Dodd-Frank or not?

Do you think more or less competition within a market benefits people?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing like learning from your past mistakes. The U.S. is notorious for that. They never learned their mistakes from the Vietnam War!

" Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So then, what good is the FDIC label if all those accounts are gone like they never existed?