The Truth Team responds to the Dodd-Frank law opposition

Romney and Santorum have both recently criticized the Dodd-Frank law that was supposed to reform Wall Street and Banks.

The Truth Team has rebutted.


Opening Statements:

The leading GOP candidates want to repeal Wall Street reform...

In 2010, President Obama signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, reforming Wall Street, broadening consumer protections for Americans and ensuring Wall Street’s risky practices could no longer go unchecked and lead to another financial crisis costing millions of jobs. The leading GOP candidates, however, are intent on repealing the reforms. Mitt Romney has called the Wall Street Reform law “extraordinarily burdensome” for the banking industry. And in an op-ed for the Detroit News today, Rick Santorum wrote:

“Many provisions of the Dodd-Frank law go against the America’s [sic] principles of limited government and individual freedom. They kill opportunities for job growth. I’ll work with Congress to repeal Dodd-Frank.”

Truth Team response:

The fact is that Wall Street’s risky and often unregulated practices nearly leveled the U.S. financial system in 2008 and put millions of Americans out of work. The reforms put into place will help prevent a similar collapse—or taxpayer intervention—from taking place again.

America’s outdated financial regulatory system allowed big banks to take irresponsible risks in the housing market. The Wall Street Reform law prohibits big banks from making such risky, speculative investments for their own personal gain at the expense of their service to their customers, shines a light on shadowy practices that fueled the crisis, ends taxpayer-funded bailouts and “too big to fail” banks, ends predatory lending practices, and ensures consumers are protected.

If a firm should fail, Wall Street—not the taxpayer—will be responsible. The Wall Street Reform law allows the government to shut down a failing financial company without spurring a financial panic that necessitates taxpayer intervention. All significant financial institutions are now required to explain exactly how they will manage a possible failure without leaving their customers holding the bag.

Financial products used to spread risk can no longer be traded in the shadows, but will have to be done on exchanges and clearinghouses that are in plain view of the public and monitored by regulators.

The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will protect homeowners and Americans with student loans, credit card debts, or payday loans by cracking down on predatory lenders and abusive debt collectors. For the first time, a single bureau is setting clear rules for the financial marketplace to make sure financial institutions will be held accountable.

These protections and layers of oversight are crucial to long-term economic growth because they’ll help make sure companies can weather the ups and downs of financial markets. Very recent history has made that clear. But when it comes to Wall Street, the leading GOP candidates continue to unite around the idea of taking America back to the failed policies of the past.

AttackWatch


There are some problems with Dodd-Frank in the opinions of many


Points & Counter-Points ?

reply to post by xuenchen


I've never actually gone to that site but knew about it. It's were you snitch on people who have different opinions than Obama right? The antithesis of Free Speech. Big Brother is watching.

I wonder what Obama does with that list? Pretty sad considering how many times Obama is on tape lying.

The real story is that such a site exists. Obama's groupies are already constantly trying to limit speech they don't agree with.

Last Thursday if I remember right, I had the TV on in the background on one of the news channels and I heard a person asked point blank, if Obama could be made into a Dictator would you support that? The guy hesitated and then said "yes"? That's what should scare people.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Last Thursday if I remember right, I had the TV on in the background on one of the news channels and I heard a person asked point blank, if Obama could be made into a Dictator would you support that? The guy hesitated and then said "yes"? That's what should scare people.

Who said that on what show?
You make it sound as if this is something Obama supporters secretly think.
I do not believe you.

After 3 years of lying to the American people about every little thing and now they come with a truth team.

Originally posted by Still

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Last Thursday if I remember right, I had the TV on in the background on one of the news channels and I heard a person asked point blank, if Obama could be made into a Dictator would you support that? The guy hesitated and then said "yes"? That's what should scare people.

Who said that on what show?
You make it sound as if this is something Obama supporters secretly think.
I do not believe you.

Why would I make something like that up? I had the news going while catching up on some stuff from work on the computer. CNN or maybe FoxNews, I'm not sure. Does not matter.

The point is that the whole idea of that site is to stifle Free Speech that does not agree with Obama. If that does not scare you and everyone else, then peoples heads are buried in the sand.

You believe Obama though, right?

The whole plan is to keep everyone at each others throats by keeping us divided to control us. They know most people are too dumb to catch on. It always works on both sides. People just act like puppets and parrot whatever they want out there.

The Truth Team Organized by the most transparent liar in my memory spanning from JFK. Don't need to prove it, as he does it on camera so often.

I'm hearing a lot of talk about wall street refom but not so much action, the only action is trillions more of debt which will inevitably lead to another bubble collapse.

reply to post by xuenchen


Well, we can start by saying that "yes, the Truth Team DID accurately say what the bill contains." There's no lie there. Having looked over the major points (and the summary graphic here), the only people (and jobs) I can see that this threatens are:
* financial institutions that say they're big and make big deals but don't have enough cash on hand to support this (actually doesn't threaten any jobs, though it does make institutions with big credit and no cash liable for prosecution.)
* people who have been getting rich with stock market schemes (illegal ones) like "pump and dump." (yes, this will run some people out of jobs. This particular kind of person -- I don't mind seeing them out of a job)
* institutions that claim they're too big to fail but don't actually have any liquid capital. (they've got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. No jobs are at risk here but your savings might be)
* institutions (like banks and those firms which sell you annuities) have to tell you if they're investing your money in high risk portfolios. Everyone who invests knows it's a gamble, but they want to know the odds up front. (again, no jobs lost but the wild risk takers are going to have to rein it in and be honest.)
* people who give institutions their credit rating are going to have to 'fess up to who they are and publish the ratings. (no jobs lost, and a better idea of who's been fudging things.)
* If you're a financial advisor who sells bonds and annuities to municipal governments, you have to register and prove you're licensed to do this (this WILL put some of the shady freelancers out of business. I don't mind. Do you?)
* If you are a broker who helps students get loans, the government will smack you down if the loans are charging high interest rates (this will knock some of the less ethical out of business and give people a chance to get loans that aren't at a 60% (not kidding on this) interest rate. A number of really bad "payday loans" companies and so forth ARE going to lose business or go out of business or change their ways. I'm okay with that -- are you?)
* public companies have to reveal how much the executives make. (I'm not sure how this is going to cost jobs because if some executive gets insulted that his paycheck isn't big enough, there's always another executive who will be happy to take that pay.)
* Mining companies have to disclose safety violation citations they get. (Okay -- THIS one may cause shutdowns and job loss, but frankly, I think mining need to FIX DANGEROUS SITUATIONS IN THE MINES, given the number of injuries and deaths among miners. Your mileage may vary, but I think it's heartbreaking to read these stories.)
* Big banks can't do a lot of risky gambling with investments. (not sure how many businesses or jobs will be lost.)

So the government will hammer a lot of stuff, yes -- but the states haven't been doing anything to address this and these things HAVE cost a lot of innocent folks a boatload of money.

Check out the graphic and see which parts you think will harm business most and then tell me why it's better to remove those restrictions.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I've never actually gone to that site but knew about it. It's were you snitch on people who have different opinions than Obama right? The antithesis of Free Speech. Big Brother is watching.

Nope.Nope and Nope.

Ever get tired of claiming that people who are excercising there own free speech are actually restricting free speech by doing so?

Does the irony or ignorance of such statements ever materialize?

It is only free speech when you agree with an opinion? But any refutation is limiting free speech?

This kind of ignorance, this failed logic is offensive to the principle of free speech...in case you still can't understand the irony.

As for Dodd-Frank....a Watered down bill, like Healthcare reform. Not great, but better than nothing and considering that the GOP Nominees would prefer the complete free wheeling criminal activities we saw before the crash it is a no brainer.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Last Thursday if I remember right, I had the TV on in the background on one of the news channels and I heard a person asked point blank, if Obama could be made into a Dictator would you support that? The guy hesitated and then said "yes"? That's what should scare people.

Wow..Really? You know what is even stranger...I was in the kitchen making dinner and had the TV on and heard Mitt Romney say that he finds President Obama physically attractive and if he was gay he would "be all over that".

This is the forum where we can just toss in dumb unsupported claims...right?

reply to post by Indellkoffer


That's a pretty good analysis of the chart.

I could hardly makes heads or tails from the thing !

It will be interesting to see if and how the candidates respond back (if they even do) !

As for any real harm to business, I am sure the affected institutions will find ways around the restrictions.
(if in fact the restrictions are even restrictions that will "hurt" them in the first place)

I hope we don't see added fees and such as a result.

I don't know if anything like that is covered or omitted.

But I still wonder why the same Congress gave those outfits all the money ?

The majority of citizens did not seem to get that direct benefit of "money back guarantee".