Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
bk, I clearly said I was a big fan of capitalism. At the start of this post I described my objection to name calling and personal attacks as a favorite tactic of fascists, especially 1930's German and Italian style. Perhaps you misread that as well.
It's really easy to say that you are opposed to being controlled by the 'big, bad government', but, for my third and final request, I would still like to hear you address the issues I raised: What is so negative about some of the major actions of the current Congress and administration? Most notably, consumer credit regulation, the Disclose Act, finance and banking regulation and securing the 20 billion escrow payment from BP?
|
It is difficult to discuss the massive, sweeping financial regulation bill signed into law July 21, 2010, by Obama. Even experts who will be directly involved in the changes made with the bill really have no idea what the true impact will be. Not just because of the immensity of the language, but because it isn't finished.
The bill gives banking and market regulators up to two years to write many of the new regulations required by the law. What does this do but open the doors for some powerful lobbying on behalf of special interests. Here's a quote from the
NY Times regarding the Dodd/Shumer Bill to show this point, "Nearly 150 lobbyists registered since last year used to work in the executive branch at financial agencies, from lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission to Federal Reserve bankers, according to data analyzed for The New York Times by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. In addition, dozens of former lawyers for the government, who are not registered as lobbyists, are now scouring the financial regulations on behalf of corporate clients."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/bu...obby.html?_r=1
Really, I don't know what impacts, good or bad will come of this. Do you know the answer to that ijusluvit?
I'd love to hear your opinions and insights into the specifics of this bill.
Here are a few of my observations though. As the government pushes the private sector out of the equation and the feds give billions of taxpayer monies to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we were told, and people are expected to trust sight unseen, that it is going to provide safeguards for millions of consumers and is written to restrain Wall Street excesses that could set off a new recession.
I don't buy anything sight unseen. Especially when it comes to the federal government's control in light of the roles government played in federally controlled Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Congressional oversight and Henry Paulson has played in all of this mess. What has the federal government been in charge of that has run successfully? The federal government consumes, it doesn't produce anything.
The president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called the law "a financial regulatory boondoggle." Maybe he knows something we don't. I do know the new law also puts in place a new board of regulators who are suppose to be watchful of risks across the finance system.
It also creates a powerful independent consumer financial protection bureau within the Federal Reserve to write and enforce new regulations covering lending and credit. More beurocrats with unreined and unprecedented power. So much for checks and balances.
When you answer the question asked above, I respectively ask you again: Who are the winners and losers when the government attempts to control and regulate business production or trade?