If There Was Ever An Argument...

[Guest]

Many of you know that I'm not against ALL government regulation, as many of you say you are. What I am against is unnecessary, over complicated and obviously ineffective regulation produced by self-serving or lobbyist-motivated members of Congress.

Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorizing regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. I supported these goals at the time, but I expressed serious doubts that Congress could write legislation which would effectively regulate profit-motivated Wall Street and the big banks. I said at the time that I didn't believe that Congress was anywhere near smart enough to do that.

Dodd-Frank turned out to be far too complex, and is becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall was thirteen pages long and effectively protected our banking system for more than half a century--until the free market reformers under the leadership of Senator Phil Gramm had it repealed in the 1990's. (By the way, shortly after getting Glass-Steagall repealed, Grammy resigned his Senate seat and became vice-chairman of the largest Swiss bank at a multi-million dollar per year salary, a position he still holds today.)

Worse, every other page of Dodd-Frank demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that the same Senate that passed Dodd-Frank has blocked the confirmation of virtually all the presidential appointees who would actually write all the necessary regulations. So while our elected representatives pat themselves on the back for "protecting" the U.S. financial system, in fact little has changed.

You may have read this week that both Barclay's Bank and DeutscheBank have legally reorganized their U.S. subsidiaries so that they avoid any regulation by U.S. regulators at all! These are both among the largest banks operating in the U.S. At the same time, the regulations that have taken effect are so expensive and strangling to the small community banks that many have already gone out of business and many more say they will have no choice but to follow. These are the banks that small businesses rely on for financing.

Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and the lawyers for the big banks in New York. But they read it mostly to confurm that the language they actually wrote got included by the lobbyists who provided it to the Congressmen who sponsored the bill.

Those who have to struggle to make sense of Dodd-Frank have an awful time because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalized. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible, partly unknowable and clearly drafted to benefit the same banks it was intended to regulate.

And the whole thing was named for the two legislators arguably most responsible for the financial meltdown of 2007 that we still suffer from, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Both the problems and his "solution" we're created over many years under the administration of both political parties. And how similar was the creation of "ObamaCare" to this story. It doesn't take much study to identify the similarities.

Oh, what a government we have. If here was ever an argument that we ought to throw them all out and start over, the legislation passed in recent decades sure seems to justify that.

[Guest]

Many of you know that I'm not against ALL government regulation, as many of you say you are. What I am against is unnecessary, over complicated and obviously ineffective regulation produced by self-serving or lobbyist-motivated members of Congress.

Consider the Dodd-Frank law of 2010. Its aim was noble: to prevent another financial crisis. Its strategy was sensible, too: improve transparency, stop banks from taking excessive risks, prevent abusive financial practices and end “too big to fail” by authorizing regulators to seize any big, tottering financial firm and wind it down. I supported these goals at the time, but I expressed serious doubts that Congress could write legislation which would effectively regulate profit-motivated Wall Street and the big banks. I said at the time that I didn't believe that Congress was anywhere near smart enough to do that.

Dodd-Frank turned out to be far too complex, and is becoming more so. At 848 pages, it is 23 times longer than Glass-Steagall, the reform that followed the Wall Street crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall was thirteen pages long and effectively protected our banking system for more than half a century--until the free market reformers under the leadership of Senator Phil Gramm had it repealed in the 1990's. (By the way, shortly after getting Glass-Steagall repealed, Grammy resigned his Senate seat and became vice-chairman of the largest Swiss bank at a multi-million dollar per year salary, a position he still holds today.)

Worse, every other page of Dodd-Frank demands that regulators fill in further detail. Some of these clarifications are hundreds of pages long. Just one bit, the “Volcker rule”, which aims to curb risky proprietary trading by banks, includes 383 questions that break down into 1,420 subquestions.

Even more ridiculous is the fact that the same Senate that passed Dodd-Frank has blocked the confirmation of virtually all the presidential appointees who would actually write all the necessary regulations. So while our elected representatives pat themselves on the back for "protecting" the U.S. financial system, in fact little has changed.

You may have read this week that both Barclay's Bank and DeutscheBank have legally reorganized their U.S. subsidiaries so that they avoid any regulation by U.S. regulators at all! These are both among the largest banks operating in the U.S. At the same time, the regulations that have taken effect are so expensive and strangling to the small community banks that many have already gone out of business and many more say they will have no choice but to follow. These are the banks that small businesses rely on for financing.

Hardly anyone has actually read Dodd-Frank, besides the Chinese government and the lawyers for the big banks in New York. But they read it mostly to confurm that the language they actually wrote got included by the lobbyists who provided it to the Congressmen who sponsored the bill.

Those who have to struggle to make sense of Dodd-Frank have an awful time because so much detail has yet to be filled in: of the 400 rules it mandates, only 93 have been finalized. So financial firms in America must prepare to comply with a law that is partly unintelligible, partly unknowable and clearly drafted to benefit the same banks it was intended to regulate.

And the whole thing was named for the two legislators arguably most responsible for the financial meltdown of 2007 that we still suffer from, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

Both the problems and his "solution" we're created over many years under the administration of both political parties. And how similar was the creation of "ObamaCare" to this story. It doesn't take much study to identify the similarities.

Oh, what a government we have. If here was ever an argument that we ought to throw them all out and start over, the legislation passed in recent decades sure seems to justify that.

All I can say at this point is that you are correct on TWO points for sure. Since you posted this thread I have tried to on my level get up to snuff on some of it and you are correct, it is difficult to understand,and if you know any "friendly" sites for me to pursue, please allow.

Secondly, it does reflect the health care bill in so many ways. I know that you will hold your breath until I post again, but I AM trying to read through some things on this bill.

I cannot leave without saying something that will get your ire up, but the health care bill along with this are legacies of this administration that will haunt this country for many many years, and as in the healthcare bill, while those in congress had to vote to accept this, the main outline of the ideas came from the Obama administration.

If you recall VK, I said I was wary and afraid of the 2008 election and I think that my fears were confirmed. I know am REALLY SCARED of the thought of this man and this administration in power with no fear of facing the electorate.

[Guest]

All I can say at this point is that you are correct on TWO points for sure. Since you posted this thread I have tried to on my level get up to snuff on some of it and you are correct, it is difficult to understand,and if you know any "friendly" sites for me to pursue, please allow.

Secondly, it does reflect the health care bill in so many ways. I know that you will hold your breath until I post again, but I AM trying to read through some things on this bill.

I cannot leave without saying something that will get your ire up, but the health care bill along with this are legacies of this administration that will haunt this country for many many years, and as in the healthcare bill, while those in congress had to vote to accept this, the main outline of the ideas came from the Obama administration.

If you recall VK, I said I was wary and afraid of the 2008 election and I think that my fears were confirmed. I know am REALLY SCARED of the thought of this man and this administration in power with no fear of facing the electorate.Bucco, I know you dislike and distrust President Obama. That is your right. But the problem we have with a deteriorating government goes a lot deeper than one man.

The whole emergence of wildly risky financial decisions and products made by the nation's banks dates back to the repeal of Glass-Steagall done by a Republican Congress, but not vetoed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Then the Democrats got control of Congress and added to the open greed of Wall Street and the big banks now permissible with the repeal of the simple but strong prohibitions on risk-taking provided by Glass-Steagall by enacting even further loosening of bank regulations. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd presided over even more loosening of the financial regulatory environment--an almost criminal loosening. But this time all was found agreeable by Republican President George Bush and his key financial appointees.

Barack Obama took office when the resulting financial crisis was at it's peak. Many like yourself argue with the steps he and his new administration took--the auto bailout, the stimulus, etc. In my opinion those steps weren't well done, far from it. But I'll also say that the new President had few choices in addressing a frozen-in-place banking system and an economy spiraling out of control.

Since then not a whole helluva lot of truly positive things have been accomplished, first by a Democratically-controlled Congress and since 2010 a "split" Congress, neither of which benefitted with any particular leadership from the White House. Oh, a growing ideological bitterness contributed to the almost complete absence of Congressional governance, but that also seems to support the argument that is the basis for my original post.

Our government is broken. Neither political party seems capable of leading the country out of the morass we face on so many fronts--fiscal, economic, foreign affairs, social issues, energy, the environment. The Democrats didn't make any improvements when they had control. Any contributions by the now Republican-controlled House are hard to find. And the circular firing squad that seems to describe the GOP nominating process doesn't provide much confidence that any real leadership will emerge from that process. If things continue as they are, it's unlikely that the Republican candidate can actually displace President Obama. And there's a growing chance that the Democrats will actually regain control of both the House and Senate. As a backdrop, fully 20% of the members of the House and Senate are quitting, giving up on the possibility that any real governance is possible, giving up and getting on with their lives.

Bucco, our government is broken. Broken badly. None of those either in elected office or running for election seem to provide any confidence that there will be a change. All Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare do is to provide proof that the governance of this country is bought and paid for by special interests, special interests with very narrow, personal, greedy and short-term objectives. And short of simply throwing everyone out of office and tying to start over, there 's no apparent solution.

And frankly, even that may not work.

[Guest]

Bucco, I know you dislike and distrust President Obama. That is your right. But the problem we have with a deteriorating government goes a lot deeper than one man.

The whole emergence of wildly risky financial decisions and products made by the nation's banks dates back to the repeal of Glass-Steagall done by a Republican Congress, but not vetoed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. Then the Democrats got control of Congress and added to the open greed of Wall Street and the big banks now permissible with the repeal of the simple but strong prohibitions on risk-taking provided by Glass-Steagall by enacting even further loosening of bank regulations. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd presided over even more loosening of the financial regulatory environment--an almost criminal loosening. But this time all was found agreeable by Republican President George Bush and his key financial appointees.

Barack Obama took office when the resulting financial crisis was at it's peak. Many like yourself argue with the steps he and his new administration took--the auto bailout, the stimulus, etc. In my opinion those steps weren't well done, far from it. But I'll also say that the new President had few choices in addressing a frozen-in-place banking system and an economy spiraling out of control.

Since then not a whole helluva lot of truly positive things have been accomplished, first by a Democratically-controlled Congress and since 2010 a "split" Congress, neither of which benefitted with any particular leadership from the White House. Oh, a growing ideological bitterness contributed to the almost complete absence of Congressional governance, but that also seems to support the argument that is the basis for my original post.

Our government is broken. Neither political party seems capable of leading the country out of the morass we face on so many fronts--fiscal, economic, foreign affairs, social issues, energy, the environment. The Democrats didn't make any improvements when they had control. Any contributions by the now Republican-controlled House are hard to find. And the circular firing squad that seems to describe the GOP nominating process doesn't provide much confidence that any real leadership will emerge from that process. If things continue as they are, it's unlikely that the Republican candidate can actually displace President Obama. And there's a growing chance that the Democrats will actually regain control of both the House and Senate. As a backdrop, fully 20% of the members of the House and Senate are quitting, giving up on the possibility that any real governance is possible, giving up and getting on with their lives.

Bucco, our government is broken. Broken badly. None of those either in elected office or running for election seem to provide any confidence that there will be a change. All Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare do is to provide proof that the governance of this country is bought and paid for by special interests, special interests with very narrow, personal, greedy and short-term objectives. And short of simply throwing everyone out of office and tying to start over, there 's no apparent solution.

And frankly, even that may not work.

I TOTALLY agree with the broken......and I agree it is not simply the President.

My opinion, he promised to lead...he promised to bring together, and while there have been obstacles thrown in his path, his actions, which belie his words have more been to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the broken part for his own benefit.

Was thinking today that would it not be wonderful if there were NO parties...no R no D. That you as an individual ran for an office and stood on what you said and wanted to do......if you wanted to run, you simply did so and no party would tell you what you should do.

I realize it is totally idealistic but it would drive people crazy...I am talking about the electorate. If they wanted to vote and feel they actually did something, they may have to read and especially listen.

Which gets me started on your subject of never voting for an incumbent and the broken government. This board is a shining example of that fact the folks are not driven to hear and listen, but they will simply go to the polls and vote either R or D. This perpetuates a vicious circles as the same folks keep getting voted in. WHY do you think redistricting is such a big deal.

[Guest]

I have no argument here but the terms financial crisis, transparcency excessive risk depends on who you are and what you want.

One could argue that Obama walked into a mess. First of all he supposedly knew that and secondly he said he could fix it. He strategically placed his synchophants and proceeded. Metaphorically speaking he threw gallons upon gallons of fuel on a small bonfire. The adverse effects of Sarbanes Oxley had been well know and so what do we get Dodd-Frank. The auto bailouts were to garner union votes. Clearly had the goverment not intervened GM and chrysler would have restructured or merged with other auto mfg. To add insult to injury Obama spurred creditors in favor of unions...can you say vote getter.

ObamarCare is so drastic, if enacted will materially materially change the manner in which this country has operated for over 225 years.

Obama is at good at convincing people he always takes the high road. This community organizer knows how to excite the masses...can you say Trayvor Martin....please barf

[Guest]

I have no argument here but the terms financial crisis, transparcency excessive risk depends on who you are and what you want.

One could argue that Obama walked into a mess. First of all he supposedly knew that and secondly he said he could fix it. He strategically placed his synchophants and proceeded. Metaphorically speaking he threw gallons upon gallons of fuel on a small bonfire. The adverse effects of Sarbanes Oxley had been well know and so what do we get Dodd-Frank. The auto bailouts were to garner union votes. ........

....Obama is at good at convincing people he always takes the high road. This community organizer knows how to excite the masses...can you say Trayvor Martin....please barf

Correct. What told us everything we need to know about how much Obama prefers to DIVIDE our society instead of unite it, was today when he said regarding Treyvon: "...If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon...".

Clearly, he is adding fuel to the fire of SPECULATION that this killing was done only because of how the boy LOOKS...the boy's RACE....when nobody knows the shooter's real motive with any certainty yet.

A leader/statesman who truly wanted everyone to unite regardless of race or skin color would not inject the race card as he did. He cannot be trusted to be an impartial, fair leader in any of the critical issues at hand.

[Guest]

Correct. What told us everything we need to know about how much Obama prefers to DIVIDE our society instead of unite it, was today when he said regarding Treyvon: "...If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon...".

Clearly, he is adding fuel to the fire of SPECULATION that this killing was done only because of how the boy LOOKS...the boy's RACE....when nobody knows the shooter's real motive with any certainty yet.

A leader/statesman who truly wanted everyone to unite regardless of race or skin color would not inject the race card as he did. He cannot be trusted to be an impartial, fair leader in any of the critical issues at hand.

I absolutely agree.

Bring it on, X.

[Guest]

Correct. What told us everything we need to know about how much Obama prefers to DIVIDE our society instead of unite it, was today when he said regarding Treyvon: "...If I had a son, he would look like Treyvon...".

Clearly, he is adding fuel to the fire of SPECULATION that this killing was done only because of how the boy LOOKS...the boy's RACE....when nobody knows the shooter's real motive with any certainty yet.

A leader/statesman who truly wanted everyone to unite regardless of race or skin color would not inject the race card as he did. He cannot be trusted to be an impartial, fair leader in any of the critical issues at hand.

This is one of the most insightful posts, among many others, that I've read from you that get right to the crux of an issue with an inarguable example.

i'm a little in awe.

Just brilliant.