WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE FINANCIAL REFORM BILL

[dirty dog]

I have not really seen anything that should be causing such an uproar within the GOP. The only concern I have is that the "pot" that is being set aside by the Banks for future bailouts is going to be too much of a lure for banks to resist making risky decisions, knowing they have a safety net. Other than that I dont see a real problem. Lets face it something has to be done. There have been some other banking reform that has already taken place and one that they hope to implement soon. I was watching a senate hearing with Bernanke. He was discussing the reform that stops banks from allowing you to over draft your debit card and then charging you $30.00 for the favor. Now you have the ability to "opt" in which tells the bank its okay to allow debit transaction that will overdraft the account and then charge you the fee. Or you can "opt" out which instructs the bank not to authorize debit card charges which will overdraft your accounts. The banks were making millions of this technique. Bernanke also talked about the banking policy of paying the most expensive check and then bouncing the others charging you an over draft fee for each bounced check. He said they are working on a new policy which will force the banks to pay the checks in the order they come in. I had this happen to me once, I mailed off 7 checks on Wed and then forgot to make the bank deposit. By monday the checks began hitting, they paid the biggest check first even though though it was not the first check to arrive. In fact 4 of the checks arrived before the large check. Well needless to say they paid the big check which overdrafted the account because I forgot to deposit it. They then bounced all of the other checks charging me $30.00 a pop. There was enough money to cover all of the checks that arrived before the big check, to me this is just bank manipulation to gouge customers. I would also agree with this reform should it become policy. So on this one I have to agree with the bill. I also like that there seems to be some true bi partisan action on this bill. What do you guys think.

[HeyMikie]

I agree with you. I'm afraid the reforms will not go far enough.

In the 70's and 80's, when banks were regulated by the states, it was illegal for them to maximize overdrafts by presenting the big items first. Banks were required to minimize the overdraft fees by presenting the smallest items first. They were further constrained by usury laws that restricted the base fee to a nominal amount (like 6-10 dollars) and any further charges had to comply with reasonable interest rates for short term loans.

State usury laws restricted the APR on mortgages to 8-12% depending on the state. Other loans, including credit cards, generally could not be charged more than 19.9% APR. These interest charge levels seem reasonable today, especially since the commercial banks can currently borrow from the Fed at 00.0% to get money to loan to us.

These laws all were enacted in the 1930's by the post-depression reform movement. Most have been negated by nationalization of the banking system during the late 80's and 90's. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that banks only had to conform to the usury laws of the least restrictive state where they had an office, and SD immediately repealed its usury laws to get banks to move there.

We need to elect representatives that will enact laws to protect the public from corporations that are willing to do ANYTHING to make money. The Financial, Petroleum, Insurance, Manufacturing, Airline, Media, and Food Industries have all seen unprecedented favorable legislation since the late 80's, fueled by unrestricted lobbying dollars.

The net result is lower employment, lower wages for the employed, lower benefits.

The bail-out is just one of the examples where the tax-payers got screwed again to save the institutions that are already screwing them EVERY DAY.

WE have to stand up and say NO. Vote everyone OUT.

[dirty dog]

Well this might upset some of my conservative brothers, but I too believe that the government needs to regulate industrys like they used to do prior to the 70's. Every major industry had federal regulation controlling the industry, I love capitalizam, but I also think that capitalizam that is allowed to run unchecked leads to industries that begin to skirt the rules and eventually we pay for it one way or the other. This regulation that was in place before did not hinder the growth and development of this country into the power it is today, nor would it again, it would however, help to keep honest companies honest. I dont believe that an argument can be made that deregulation has been successful.

[lacrew_2000]

The financial bill is very broad, and more complicated than I can comprehend. I like usury rules in general...I have had the big check/lots of little checks trick happen. I have also noticed a compression in the amount of time between when I get a credit card bill, and when it is due...and the 'race to the bottom' to get an office in SD reflects an unconstitutional usurping state's rights to regulate within their borders.

I will say that a byproduct of taming the credit banks will be a tightening of consumer credit - with short term implications for the economy.

I think the bill also has some tighter requirements on a banks asset/loan ratio. Again, a good thing, but during the period of initial implementation, business loans, home loans, development loans, etc. will be hard to get...no matter how good your credit is, the banks gotta get its ratios in order.

I don't like the declaration that some companies will be deemed 'too big to fail', and forced to pay into some sort of insurance fund. It sounds like a good idea at first...but any implicit government backing seems to get us in trouble (Fannie and Freddie).

[Cheaper2buyit]

make them pay a % of profit to a fund for not if but when they fuck up & keep the bill strong.

[Longermonger]

Wot? Nobody is screaming "communism!"??? I guess everybody likes Obama's consumer protection angle. Cool.

[john_galt]

I am bothered by three things so far; the $50 billion slush fund that can be used by the President (with no congressional oversight) to bail out a bank, the new found ability of the President to declare a business in crisis without oversight, and the canard of "we need a law to stop future bailouts". Wouldn't it just be easier if the congress and the president just decide to stop bailouts?

Once a business is in "crisis" the president has unprecedented powers which would include firing the entire board of directors, installing a hand picked board, the liquidation of the company, and don't forget the stockholders. Look what happened to the stockholders of the car companies. 20 cents on the dollar???

[dirty dog]

Monger, there is a difference between oversight and take over, which why your not seeing a lot of screaming about socializm. I dont have a problem with regulation, because its human nature to push the edge of the envelope and if there is nothing to push back then the edge keeps getting moved until the point we have collapse. Like JG I do have concerns about a few points of the bill, but I have no problem with the implementation of supervising regulations.

[HeyMikie]

Are you familiar with the actions the Federal Reserve can (and will) take when they deem a bank "insolvent". Sounds like duplication of effort to me. There is already some complaint that the Fed is too heavy handed and that many takeovers are political rather than driven by actual fiscal crisis.

Does the new bill extend to investment banks, insurance companies, and other corporate businesses? Will it be administered by the SEC or the Fed or both? The problem with both of those oversight agencies is that they have been loaded up with corporate insiders as repayment of campaign contributions, so it ends up being the Fox guarding the Hen house.

The same problem with the FDA and the USDA. They used to be fairly independent and provided real oversight, but now they're full of industry insiders and only protect the corporations at the public's loss.

[Cheaper2buyit]

mike its all about the big banks the investment banks dirty or crew will have links.

[Longermonger]

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people”

Abe Lincoln

[dirty dog]

So Monger if your not a capitalist then what are you? Honest question, how about an honest answer.

[Philhelm]

All I can say is, "laissez-faire!!!"

[dirty dog]

"
All I can say is, "laissez-faire!!!"

Dont be using them fancy schoolin words around these parts bud, besides what does them lezzy's being fair have to do with it. LOL

Seriously, I do agree with you. Keep government out of the business of running a business. But you also have to guard the hen house or the Coyote eats all your chickens. Although I would say that a lot of large corporations run a pretty clean ship, whenever you have to make shareholders happy you always have the temptation to do something you shouldn't. You did not have Eron type occurances back when there was some regulation.

[Gryphon]

Actually, the $50 billion fund is to oversee the orderly breaking up of entities (AIG anyone?) that might be deemed "too big to fail." Tapping the fund activates a mandatory series of actions that lead to the breakup and sale of the company. So the current language of the bill says that no company will be too big to fail, there will just be a predetermined, orderly process by which it will happen. And the big financial companies have to fund it.

I have to say, I like the overall scope and actions in this bill, and I've only voted for one Democrat in my life (it wasn't BHO).