Obama's bank regulation
Discussion
US President Barack Obama has proposed limits to the size of banks to try to prevent future financial crises.
"Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail," Mr Obama said.
He recently announced a $117bn (£72bn) levy on banks to recoup money US taxpayers spent bailing out the banks.
US stocks - especially banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America - fell sharply as Mr Obama announced the sweeping new rules.
His proposals also include limits on the amount of risk banks can take, and banning retail banks from using their own money into risky financial transactions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8473294.stm
How do you limit risk? Is it simply a case of restricting the amount a bank can lend?
"Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail," Mr Obama said.
He recently announced a $117bn (£72bn) levy on banks to recoup money US taxpayers spent bailing out the banks.
US stocks - especially banks such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America - fell sharply as Mr Obama announced the sweeping new rules.
His proposals also include limits on the amount of risk banks can take, and banning retail banks from using their own money into risky financial transactions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8473294.stm
How do you limit risk? Is it simply a case of restricting the amount a bank can lend?
Mclovin said:
i always thought he was a puppet for the banksters...i guess i was wrong, why cant our stupid government go after the banks or the one that f
ked everything up....
I'm not sure going after the banks is really the right approach. Surely you want the banks free to do whatever they want (within reason) but if they get their business horribly wrong the go bust without impacting the taxpayer.ked everything up....
Point of order...Obama is offering a proposal
He has no power to legislate from the Presidency.
Only Congress can legislate and Barry appears to be suffering some issues with Congress at the moment.
This is "politics of envy" hubris from the "community organizer". In effect he is telling the American public (after Scott Brown's win), "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", it's bankers and those "rich", "wall street" fat cats that you don't like. Remember? Well, I'm here to punish them for you...
Interesting times for the next nine months in the USA. There will be much more of this "blame the rich for your misery" talk while Barry and company print more money. The wake up call will be when they find out that the average American is not as stupid as they seem to think...
ErnestM said:
This is "politics of envy" hubris from the "community organizer". In effect he is telling the American public (after Scott Brown's win), "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", it's bankers and those "rich", "wall street" fat cats that you don't like. Remember? Well, I'm here to punish them for you...
I find this 'politics of envy' response a little tiresome when anyone talks about the banking industry. It was only a few months ago a lot of it would have been out of business without taxpayer support. I would say that is good enough reason to review the laws/regulations that control the industry.Fittster said:
ErnestM said:
This is "politics of envy" hubris from the "community organizer". In effect he is telling the American public (after Scott Brown's win), "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", it's bankers and those "rich", "wall street" fat cats that you don't like. Remember? Well, I'm here to punish them for you...
I find this 'politics of envy' response a little tiresome when anyone talks about the banking industry. It was only a few months ago a lot of it would have been out of business without taxpayer support. I would say that is good enough reason to review the laws/regulations that control the industry.1. A lot of the banks being reference have already paid back the money lent to them
2. with interest
...and now Barry wants to further modify the deal by tacking on another fee.
Rediculous. It's a money grab pure and simple. It's punishment for an unnamed sin. Politics of envy.
You want to regulate the banks - fine. Regulate them. Why do "new fees" even enter into the equation? Unless of course, your real agenda is to "show the public how bad you are punishing the evil ones..."
Just my opinion.
Fittster said:
ErnestM said:
Well, consider this -
1. A lot of the banks being reference have already paid back the money lent to them
2. with interest
So you're happy to go down a path of boom, bust, bail-out forever more? I'm not sure it's sustainable model.1. A lot of the banks being reference have already paid back the money lent to them
2. with interest
randlemarcus said:
Mclovin said:
i always thought he was a puppet for the banksters...i guess i was wrong, why cant our stupid government go after the banks or the one that fked everything up....
Because its bad form for the Civil Service to try and oust the serving Prime Minister?ked everything up....Do you really mean the parliamentary labour party's "failed coup d'etat", which technically it wasn't, who are absolutely nothing to do with the civil service?
Or are you suggesting some catch all term for "the armed forces and/or the police"? Both of whom have taken oaths to the Queen (as the sovereign/ head of state) which in turn is part of and subserviant to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law, and fortunately they have some understanding of what democracy is. I think the Queen technically dissolve any parliament, at any time, or perhaps ask someone else to form a government, however either would just create a constitutional crisis, speed the royal family out of the door and us into a republic.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 21st January 19:18
Fittster said:
ErnestM said:
Well, consider this -
1. A lot of the banks being reference have already paid back the money lent to them
2. with interest
So you're happy to go down a path of boom, bust, bail-out forever more? I'm not sure it's sustainable model.1. A lot of the banks being reference have already paid back the money lent to them
2. with interest
ErnestM said:
Rediculous. It's a money grab pure and simple. It's punishment for an unnamed sin. Politics of envy.
You want to regulate the banks - fine. Regulate them. Why do "new fees" even enter into the equation? Unless of course, your real agenda is to "show the public how bad you are punishing the evil ones..."
Just my opinion.
I dunno, limiting the size of banks in my opinion is no bad thing. Our local bank here in Florida was recently swallowed up by a huge international bank and the way it treats its customers has already changed.You want to regulate the banks - fine. Regulate them. Why do "new fees" even enter into the equation? Unless of course, your real agenda is to "show the public how bad you are punishing the evil ones..."
Just my opinion.
Cue the letter from the bank the other day that stated our account was to be closed in 7 days. Apparently, despite funds being available, someone had bounced a check on us, and because "your account has not be run in a satisfactory manner, we are forced to close the account".
I mean, what utter BS?? The account has always been in credit, has been in existence for years upon years doing the housekeeping and stuff, and someone bounces a check and with barely a thought we get the account closed.
Strangely enough the branch were already on alert to our arrival to rip a new a
hole, and had senior management reverse the decision.But frankly, if thats how banks are going to behave in the future, then they deserve to have some tough rules thrown at them.
I have no problem with regulation. It's the "fees" that I object to.
The reasoning is simple, banks won't pay these fees, they will simply pass them along to their account holders. Oh, they won't call them "Barry's bank fee", they'll simply raise their "account maintenance fees" or some such nonsense.
That means, the average middle class depositor will actually pay them.
The end result will be the government picking the pocket of the public using the banks as a "bag man". It's rediculous. Barry has no clue how companies operate because he has never been in the private sector in any capacity and his idealogical philosophy is skewed leftist.
By all means, use smart(er) regulations, but keep your hand out of my pocket while doing it.
The reasoning is simple, banks won't pay these fees, they will simply pass them along to their account holders. Oh, they won't call them "Barry's bank fee", they'll simply raise their "account maintenance fees" or some such nonsense.
That means, the average middle class depositor will actually pay them.
The end result will be the government picking the pocket of the public using the banks as a "bag man". It's rediculous. Barry has no clue how companies operate because he has never been in the private sector in any capacity and his idealogical philosophy is skewed leftist.
By all means, use smart(er) regulations, but keep your hand out of my pocket while doing it.
Northern Munkee said:
randlemarcus said:
Mclovin said:
i always thought he was a puppet for the banksters...i guess i was wrong, why cant our stupid government go after the banks or the one that fked everything up....
Because its bad form for the Civil Service to try and oust the serving Prime Minister?ked everything up....Do you really mean the parliamentary labour party's "failed coup d'etat", which technically it wasn't, who are absolutely nothing to do with the civil service?
Or are you suggesting some catch all term for "the armed forces and/or the police"? Both of whom have taken oaths to the Queen (as the sovereign/ head of state) which in turn is part of and subserviant to the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law, and fortunately they have some understanding of what democracy is. I think the Queen technically dissolve any parliament, at any time, or perhaps ask someone else to form a government, however either would just create a constitutional crisis, speed the royal family out of the door and us into a republic.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 21st January 19:18
McL asked for someone to go after "the one". I cant think of anyone who fits that description better than our Chancellor during the boom years, and PM during the implosion.
Perhaps its time for Sir Humphrey to act?
Robert Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpest...
'George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has just told me that Obama's plan to break up the banks is consistent with the views he expressed in his recent bank reform paper.
His condition for implementing such a radical plan was that it needed international agreement.
Well, he has got that now. So he has told me - explicitly - that a Tory government would impose an identical dismantling of British banks to those suggested by President Obama.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpest...
'George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has just told me that Obama's plan to break up the banks is consistent with the views he expressed in his recent bank reform paper.
His condition for implementing such a radical plan was that it needed international agreement.
Well, he has got that now. So he has told me - explicitly - that a Tory government would impose an identical dismantling of British banks to those suggested by President Obama.'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff