House Republicans Pass Bill to Rip Up Post-Crisis Bank Rules

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Logarock

Their retirements were GAMBLED on the stock market. There USED to be this thing called a pension. It was a BENEFIT to entice hard work and QUALITY employees.

You were PAID a percentage of your salary once retired without RISKY investments.

American workers are LOOSING ... The power of the WORKER has declined for years now.

Well yea and they were told, as I remember the days when 401k fist came out and was sold as the end of it all, that these things were protected from dumbasses.

a reply to: EternalShadow

The Republicans did something AHHHHHH DOOM!

Bernie Sanders

“I will fight to reinstate a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act to clearly separate commercial banking, investment banking and insurance services,” Sanders said Tuesday, referring to a law established during the Great Depression that was weakened and repealed under presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. “Real Wall Street reform means breaking up the big banks and re-establishing firewalls that separates risk taking from traditional banking.”

“Hillary would appoint people who think Dodd-Frank is mostly successful and just needs a little more work,” he said. “Bernie would appoint people who think our financial system is a massive problem and needs a major overhaul.”

WSJ

She suggested, according to the transcript of one appearance, that Dodd-Frank was enacted “for political reasons” because the press was saying the Great Recession was “the fault of Wall Street” and that “the jury is still out” on the law’s effectiveness. She was also quoted as saying that postcrisis regulations were suppressing lending. The Clinton campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the material being posted by WikiLeaks is authentic.

Oh look, the Democratic messiah's seem to think Dodd Frank was garbage and restrict lending on small business.

A website you won't like

The element of Dodd-Frank that has irked many business owners in particular has been the law’s higher reserve requirements, which means that banks need to hold a far higher percentage of their assets in cash than they were required to hold prior to the financial crash. Big reserve requirements consequently limit a bank’s ability to hold marketable securities and connect business with buyers to take on bonds and invest. Likewise, critics generally believe that issuing bigger reserve requirements for banks makes them less willing to lend to startups and small businesses with little collateral.

Dodd-Frank also increased capital reserve requirements for banks as a percentage of total bank assets. Since banks make money from lending, maintaining a higher percentage of assets in cash reduces the bank's profitability. Because the bank’s cost of underwriting a $100,000 loan is the same as a $1 million loan, banks that are pressed to increase profitability will prefer to underwrite larger loans. This is alarming, because approximately 80% of small businesses seek loans smaller than $500,000. By increasing capital reserve requirements and regulatory costs, many small banks facing a profit crunch have been forced to close or consolidate.

I see a lot of people saying that Dpdd Frank was some kind of economic savior however I see no one articulately making a case in point with accurate information from valid sources.

a reply to: Logarock

Indeed
No swamp will be drained..far too cozy in there.

a reply to: DanteGaland

There's no better evidence than this as to where all the money is going. It's being siphoned to the top and has been for decades.

There is no such thing as "trickle down economics" when a good majority of these CEO's paychecks are going into offshore tax havens.

We're being robbed blind and some people seem to be fine with that.

originally posted by: vonclod
Jeezus..am I missing something here? they want to undo the measures taken to prevent the financial powers that be, from crashing and screwing everybody, and being rewarded for doing so..AGAIN??

Oh but come on Von! Them were the good old days! Dumb ass working stiffs! What do they know about the important and truly valuable things in life? They deserve to have their legacy stolen right out from under them! Makes me feel good to when I see a 85 year old woman working at Cracker Barrel cause she has to.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Yes and its not trickle down when we buy 90% MADE IN CHINA. Walmart DOES NOT represent trickle down to anywhere but China.

a reply to: Logarock

It was criminal what happened,
My mom, who turned 70 today is still working..more to keep busy and help with the bills a bit, in Canada the crash did not hit quite as hard..due to better regulation.
www.nber.org...

originally posted by: toysforadults
Apparently you guys don't understand how a free market is suppose to work.

Free markets don't exist because things never work the way they are "suppose to work".

Seriously am I the only free market person left on the boards?

I doubt it but many people see why free markets are a pipe dream.

a reply to: daskakik

Go ahead and explain to me when is the last time we had a free market?

a reply to: Logarock

What other option is there when your salary dictates that you have to buy cheap?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Meh, what did people do before Walmart?..I just despise Walmart and what has happened to the mom and pop business.

a reply to: vonclod

I despise it too. I was in Walmart a few months ago and saw a sign that read "Local craft store closed? Don't worry, we've got you covered!" or something along those lines. Almost as if they're bragging that they ran the local shops out of business. I hate it but that's one if the downfalls of capitalism.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do you guys plan on discussing the topic are is this an attempted derail?

a reply to: toysforadults

Not trying to derail at all, it's just where the discussion turned. My bad.

a reply to: toysforadults

On a national level, never, in any country.

Please note that the most important part of that original legislation passed in 2008 was that taxpayers would NEVER be on the hook for the losses incurred by derivatives gambling by the banks.

A few years ago, that small law in the Dodd-Frank bill was quietly stripped away around the holidays while we were busy Christmas shopping and being good little consumers, with hardly any coverage by the media, and was happily voted away by both sides of this two party system, which is a sorry joke.

Now they're doing the rest of the dirty work because the banks are practically INSOLVENT. Watch yourself and your money........try going into a bank now and withdrawing more than a few thousand. They get very upset and tell you they just don't have money like that on hand, and you have to call them a day or two ahead of time so they can have it for you. I seriously could NOT get the money I wanted out of my account.

I made up a story about wanting to buy a car, but the real reason is, I have a bad feeling and if a bunch of them go belly up, the FDIC (insurance by the banks) cannot cover us all, so it'll be a massive disaster which our tax dollars will be used to clean up.

I keep the minimum in the bank because something stinks to high heaven about this whole thing. The Repubs may be the face of this but I guarantee you, both sides are in on this robbery.

One of these days, say, after a lovely holiday weekend, you will find them saying they were hacked by Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians, and you can't get your money until they figure it all out. There have been beta tests in Cyprus (remember that?), and even in Texas not that long ago....a few banks said, "Oh, no, we're hacked, no money can be gotten for now".

If they don't drag us into a war first (and BOTH sides were going in this direction, please don't do the "Dems would NEVER take us to war" garbage because Hillary stated that, as prez, her first order of business would be to attack Iran), the minute they claim hacking and call a bank holiday, hit the deck, because the switch on the fan will be flipped and the steaming pile will hit with ugly results. Keep money and food on hand, the government suddenly playing with, and changing around, this legislation is for a reason. It's not an evil stunt from one party, as the OP is indicating. It's Wall Street using the legislators to set us up for a fall. Otherwise, why mess with it?

a reply to: FissionSurplus

The Federal Reserve can easily print more money.

If they remove the red tape they will have to remove the safety nets. They should let banks rise and fall at their own peril.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Everyone is really quick to blame the big banks for the collapse but the big banks didn't force the American public to take out loans knowing they couldn't pay them back.

It was a lesson America needed and the government shouldn't have bailed anyone out.

a reply to: toysforadults

No one forced the banks to knowingly screw our economy over either.

If someone sells you faulty equipment after telling you it's perfectly fine do you blame yourself for buying it or the seller for lying to you?