• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Volcker Rule' Stalls in Senate

MC.no.spin

MC.no.spin

Fool & Troll Handler
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
971
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Key senators are expected to scrap President Barack Obama's proposal to prohibit commercial banks from certain risky trading activities, people familiar with the matter said, a setback for the administration's bid to limit the size and scope of the largest U.S. banks.

The proposal, dubbed the "Volcker rule" after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, would have essentially prevented any commercial bank with federally insured deposits from owning a division that makes speculative bets with its own capital.

But after resistance from lawmakers from both parties, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and other legislators are expected to introduce a plan next week that would give regulators more discretion to limit and potentially ban risky trading at banks, especially if it poses a risk to the broader economy. The measure would stop short of banning such trading outright.
Click to expand...

'Volcker Rule' Stalls in Senate - WSJ.com


If this extremely intelligent proposal fails to make it through Congress .... I'm just glad there is a strong campaign to vote the incumbents out. Corruption!!!!
 
Last edited:
What ya expect? there is like over 100 bills waiting on the Senate to do something about lol.... talk about gridlock.
 
PeteEU said:
What ya expect? there is like over 100 bills waiting on the Senate to do something about lol.... talk about gridlock.
Click to expand...

This hits a new low for me with Congress as this has been a hot issue with bi-partisan sentiment that the banks must be more tightly regulated and not use tax-payer backing to wage risky bets on Wall Street.
 
MC.no.spin said:
This hits a new low for me with Congress as this has been a hot issue with bi-partisan sentiment that the banks must be more tightly regulated and not use tax-payer backing to wage risky bets on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Actually, we used to have that. It was known as Glass-Steagall. Democrats and Republicans alike killed it, and replaced it with the Gramm-Bliley Act, which Bill Clinton signed. Our congresscritters, and the president, betrayed the American peoples' trust.
 
Hate to break it to you but the Senate is right to oppose this furtherance of Obama's attempt at total control of the banking system.

The Government forced through the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve to make loans they otherwise would not have made adding dramatically to the banking problems that combined with other conditions to create the problems that came to light in 2008.

Keep in mind Obama wants to control how Banks invest THEIR OWN MONEY.

Would like to see Obama who has shown he incompetent at everything making decisions for you about how you spend YOUR OWN MONEY.

This is about control. I can see telling the banks that if they invest their own money in a ricky venture and they lose their on their own, but not allow Obama to have more control over anything.

Look up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, and read the effects of it.

Did the banks make mistakes? Yes but giving more control of any industry to Government is is a fools game that continues down the road to total Socialism.
 
Councilman said:
Hate to break it to you but the Senate is right to oppose this furtherance of Obama's attempt at total control of the banking system.

The Government forced through the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which requires banks to lend throughout the communities they serve to make loans they otherwise would not have made adding dramatically to the banking problems that combined with other conditions to create the problems that came to light in 2008.

Keep in mind Obama wants to control how Banks invest THEIR OWN MONEY.

Would like to see Obama who has shown he incompetent at everything making decisions for you about how you spend YOUR OWN MONEY.

This is about control. I can see telling the banks that if they invest their own money in a ricky venture and they lose their on their own, but not allow Obama to have more control over anything.

Look up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, and read the effects of it.

Did the banks make mistakes? Yes but giving more control of any industry to Government is is a fools game that continues down the road to total Socialism.
Click to expand...
You can bet Van Jones is helping out here somewhere.
http://vanjones.net/
 
Last edited:
MC.no.spin said:
This hits a new low for me with Congress as this has been a hot issue with bi-partisan sentiment that the banks must be more tightly regulated and not use tax-payer backing to wage risky bets on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

But that's not what this bill is targeting.

The proposal, dubbed the "Volcker rule" after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, would have essentially prevented any commercial bank with federally insured deposits from owning a division that makes speculative bets with its own capital.
Click to expand...

They're trying to limit the activities of any corporation that owns a bank with FDIC accounts, regardless of whether those activities have anything to do with the FDIC accounts or taxpayer money.

It's the logical equivalent of banning people with families from playing poker on the grounds that if they lost a lot of money, it could hurt someone other than the poker player.
 
RightinNYC said:
But that's not what this bill is targeting.



They're trying to limit the activities of any corporation that owns a bank with FDIC accounts, regardless of whether those activities have anything to do with the FDIC accounts or taxpayer money.

It's the logical equivalent of banning people with families from playing poker on the grounds that if they lost a lot of money, it could hurt someone other than the poker player.
Click to expand...

But..... but..... it's for the children!!!!!!!
 
danarhea said:
Actually, we used to have that. It was known as Glass-Steagall. Democrats and Republicans alike killed it, and replaced it with the Gramm-Bliley Act, which Bill Clinton signed. Our congresscritters, and the president, betrayed the American peoples' trust.
Click to expand...

They betrayed our trust not by allowing this risky lending, which I have no problem with, but by bailing out those companies that did it and lost. They didn't allow bad actions to go unpunished as they naturally would have in the market and so in effect told banks that it was a good thing that they took those risks and lost. Corporatism for the win! Screw the people!
 
phattonez said:
They betrayed our trust not by allowing this risky lending, which I have no problem with, but by bailing out those companies that did it and lost. They didn't allow bad actions to go unpunished as they naturally would have in the market and so in effect told banks that it was a good thing that they took those risks and lost. Corporatism for the win! Screw the people!
Click to expand...

Those companies were too big to fail..... the politicians would have lost a bundle.
 
Crunch said:
Those companies were too big to fail..... the politicians would have lost a bundle.
Click to expand...

So would have the average American who has variouas investment vehicles like 401ks
 
winston53660 said:
So would have the average American who has variouas investment vehicles like 401ks
Click to expand...

And here I am thinking that they lost a lot anyway. The people who lost all that money still have jobs and are raking in the dough. Amazing, huh?
 
phattonez said:
The people who lost all that money still have jobs and are raking in the dough. Amazing, huh?
Click to expand...

This is my recommendation for the Wall Streeters that lost all that money:

Burning-at-the-stake.jpg
 
phattonez said:
And here I am thinking that they lost a lot anyway. The people who lost all that money still have jobs and are raking in the dough. Amazing, huh?
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people on wall street had nothing to do with the underlying problems in the economy, so it's not surprising that they weren't all fired.
 
RightinNYC said:
The vast majority of people on wall street had nothing to do with the underlying problems in the economy, so it's not surprising that they weren't all fired.
Click to expand...

Neither did the people who did lose the money. Those companies were bailed out.
 
winston53660 said:
This is my recommendation for the Wall Streeters that lost all that money:

Burning-at-the-stake.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh, right, it was those nasty Wall Streeters who forced Americans to incur massive amounts of debt. Damn them!

:roll:
 
Ethereal said:
Oh, right, it was those nasty Wall Streeters who forced Americans to incur massive amounts of debt. Damn them!

:roll:
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the average working citizen with a 401k. Not CREDIT CARD MILLIONAIRES.
 
phattonez said:
Neither did the people who did lose the money. Those companies were bailed out.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this on? Job losses on wall street have been substantial.

Job Loss League Table - The Updated 'Hit List' :: Business News :: Here Is The City News :: The Latest Business & Financial Markets News And Views

Despite accounting for less than 5% of the jobs in NYC, Wall Street accounted for more than 1/4 of all jobs lost in the city this past year.

The claim that government bailouts spared the financial industry from pain is demonstrably false.
 
phattonez said:
Neither did the people who did lose the money. Those companies were bailed out.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the people at GM who were insolvent before financial crisis hit? Yes it is amazing those unions with political connections get a pass when ripping off the public for something like $ 80 billion.

As to the large banks and the TARP bailout, the government has already taken it's pound of flesh in interest and stock options.
 
RightinNYC said:
But that's not what this bill is targeting.

"The proposal, dubbed the "Volcker rule" after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, would have essentially prevented any commercial bank with federally insured deposits from owning a division that makes speculative bets with its own capital."

They're trying to limit the activities of any corporation that owns a bank with FDIC accounts, regardless of whether those activities have anything to do with the FDIC accounts or taxpayer money.

It's the logical equivalent of banning people with families from playing poker on the grounds that if they lost a lot of money, it could hurt someone other than the poker player.
Click to expand...


If the bank makes investments in risky investment vehicles like CDOs and CDSs, and those go bad (like they did), the whole bank can collapse and not be able to honor those FDIC accounts. Thus even if they aren't using the capital of those FDIC backed accounts, the fact that they are unable to meet their financial obligations due to their bad investments makes them susceptible to needing to be bailed out. Too many of these banks are "too big to fail" (so would need bail-out) and thus if there are no laws on the books to prevent them from making these risky investments, what is there to prevent them from doing it again? If they want to invest in such risky investment vehicles, they should do it under another corporation that is not going to be bailed out by the tax payer if things go wrong.
 
MC.no.spin said:
If the bank makes investments in risky investment vehicles like CDOs and CDSs...
Click to expand...

CDS's were not used as investment vehicles by banks. They were the financial sector's way of mitigating risk and hedging their bets. CDS's had literally nothing to do with the collapse in the housing sector; their failure was a symptom, not a cause.

...and those go bad (like they did), the whole bank can collapse and not be able to honor those FDIC accounts. Thus even if they aren't using the capital of those FDIC backed accounts, the fact that they are unable to meet their financial obligations due to their bad investments makes them susceptible to needing to be bailed out. Too many of these banks are "too big to fail" (so would need bail-out) and thus if there are no laws on the books to prevent them from making these risky investments, what is there to prevent them from doing it again? If they want to invest in such risky investment vehicles, they should do it under another corporation that is not going to be bailed out by the tax payer if things go wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not the problem. The Fed is the pusher, credit is the drug, and Americans are the addicts. The financial system was just responding to the perverse incentives created by monetary and fiscal policy.
 
Ethereal said:
CDS's were not used as investment vehicles by banks. They were the financial sector's way of mitigating risk and hedging their bets. CDS's had literally nothing to do with the collapse in the housing sector; their failure was a symptom, not a cause.
Click to expand...

CDSs were the big AIG meltdown cause and where much tax payer money has been spent to rescue the economy and banks.


That's not the problem. The Fed is the pusher, credit is the drug, and Americans are the addicts. The financial system was just responding to the perverse incentives created by monetary and fiscal policy.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that monetary and fiscal policy is currently perverse, but don't offer up how to prevent the crisis from occurring again. I don't follow your reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom