Wall Street Reform
Favor
Side Score: 12
|
 |
Oppose
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
The following comes from a recent speech given by President Obama about the financial reform bill... We’re going to make sure the American taxpayer is never again on the hook when a Wall Street firm fails. Never again. We don’t want to see another bailout. That’s what this reform does...That’s point number one. Point number two -- we’re going to close the loopholes that allowed derivatives and all these other large, risky deals that don’t make a lot of economic sense and that could threaten our entire economy -- we want to bring those deals out of the dark alleys of our financial system into the light of day, so that everybody knows exactly what’s happening, what risks are being taken -- investors, shareholders, everybody knows what’s going on. That’s the second thing. Number three -- this reform is going to give you more power because we’re going to put in place the strongest consumer financial protections in history... Finally, we’re going to give the people who own these financial companies -– mainly investors and pension holders and shareholders like many of you -– we want you to have more say in the way they’re run. Because some of these firms, they’ve got these huge salaries, huge bonuses that create a perverse incentive to encourage people to take reckless risks. But if you own stock in these companies, you need to get some say in how they operate... Now, I don’t think this should be a partisan issue. Everybody –- Republicans, and Democrats, and independents -– were hurt by this crisis. So everybody should want to fix it. Side: Favor
I do not wish to sound like a jack ass, but I am a graduating senior with a major in business. I’ve invested in stocks since I was 11 and have a good understanding of the market. When you watch CNBC and they say Obama is attacking the market with reform or taxes, he rely is. Think about it, Europe a place with a vat tax in place already!!!! Is sinking like a ton of bricks…..i.e. Greece and Portugal, and Spain. Obama and the dem’s are also considering a 40% tax on dividends??????????? Wow that is a direct tax on the middle class like myself! I do not make six figures as does the majority of the nation, so often we buy stocks like HD,GE and LOW and so on that give a solid dividend in order to offset sum risk involved in you portfolio. By taking these….. Obama is killing the middle class income and 401k by default. Yes the system failed us!!!! And the executives from goldmen deserve to hang in time square in my opinion! But structuring the FREE MARKET SYSTEM (USA) with regulation after regulation and taxes to boot, will be very bad. It will slowly choke the system year by year until the market cannot move anymore, except down!!!!!! Yes the system failed us but not because their was no rules in place!!! There in fact were already rules against this already but people at the SCC and State department and Congress who are not trained in business actually let the regulations on derivatives expire and lead us ten years later to this crisis. In fact the only person who did say anything back in 99 was a woman who I do not remember her name, but she was shamed and bullied out of her job……. By some of the same congressman who denounced GOLDMEN!!!!!! The problem is not just the rules, but the people who are making rules on what they do not know about. Congressmen and Obama are almost political science majors or Lawyers!!!! Not business men/women and the people who they appoint or hire to help them understand these rules they do not know are all crooks or rejects from the business world!!!!!!!! I know we all hate these big banks for what they did they should be fined and have their top executives stripped of their pay and put in jail, and SOME rules should be put in place. But completely re-regulating the industry and I truly mean suffocating the system will only hurt us ten years from now and the economy is dragging its feet along on its heals and we have the biggest bear economy in the world. We as a nation will be left behind all the others and economically speaking we will all curse the days of the Obama administration just as we do the Bush administration for the Iraq war. Oh just so you know, I am a democrat from the bay area and I hate bush, but he did not cause this!!!! This was caused by congress in 98-99 session when Clinton was in office and he let the congress de-regulate some of these rules against these banks. And like idiots they gambled big!!!!! Side: some reform
|
2
points
This bill is intended to prevent bailouts. It gives the government the power to "seize and dismantle huge financial firms on the brink of failure if their collapse threatens the economy." http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/20/ Side: Favor
1
point
And to whom do you think the assets will be sold to? Other Wall Street firms! The big will be made bigger. Be mindful of the fact that if all the assets on the books of Wallstreet firms are one day owned by one firm we have arrived at the necessity of "too big to fail". The legislation you are referring to speaks of small enough to fail. Side: Oppose
I e-mailed my senator (Kay Bailey Hutchison; republican) expressing my support for the bill; the following comes from her response... As Congress considers proposals to reform our nation’s financial system, I am working to ensure that consumers will be safeguarded against unfair practices by banks and financial institutions. However, these proposals must not restrict the availability of consumer credit options by negatively impacting private industry. I support financial literacy efforts to ensure that Americans have sufficient information to fully understand their banking and borrowing options so they can make an informed decision. In all economic climates, it is imperative that a range of credit options be available to all consumers. On June 17, 2009, President Barack Obama released a proposal to reform our nation’s financial regulatory structure. This proposal sought to provide more supervision of our financial system. It aimed to remove loopholes to allow for better oversight of all segments of our financial markets and institutions. It also sought to establish better cooperation between regulatory authorities in the United States and around the world to ensure that financial institutions are subject to similar regulation in all markets. While well intentioned, there are a number of issues within this proposal that raise concern. I am opposed to a provision in the President’s proposal that would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. As we’ve learned during this economic downturn, it is important for consumers to be as well informed as possible when using financial instruments. Companies creating such instruments have a role in ensuring that consumers are undertaking appropriate obligations. However, creating a new bureaucracy with near-endless authority over all facets of our economy is not the best answer to providing consumer protections in the financial sector. We do not need more government. Instead, I believe we need to ensure that our regulators do their job, enforcing rules and writing new ones when necessary to protect consumers. Side: Oppose
”As we’ve learned during this economic downturn, it is important for consumers to be as well informed as possible when using financial instruments.” What an idiot! I hope she doesn’t bitch when she hires an electrician to install a new circuit in her house which later causes the fire that consumes her house. Perhaps the insurance company will give her an equivalent response and state: “Your policy doesn’t cover your ignorance of applied electricity. If you were well informed in the proper application of electrical circuits you would have undoubtedly not suffered the loss of your home. However, if you care to dispute the claim on the loss of your house, we suggest you divert those energies to familiarizing yourself with electrical circuitry.” Note: Your policy does not cover incompetence regarding “home ownership”! Side: Oppose
creating a new bureaucracy with near-endless authority over all facets of our economy is not the best answer to providing consumer protections in the financial sector. We do not need more government. Instead, I believe we need to ensure that our regulators do their job, enforcing rules and writing new ones when necessary to protect consumers typical republican response: 1. accept the populist view 2. throw in vague innuendos of ungoverned bureaucracy 3. offer 0 solutions. 4. thus pat the people on the back with one hand while jerking off corporate overlords with the other I'm convinced republicans are cuckolds or idiots when it comes to the economy. The fact is, after the great depression we did not have a single economic bubble, burst, recession, or depression until Corporate America began hiring their candidates to peal away reforms. Regulate the shit out of it. Casinos are regulated, why isn't the Wall Street slot machine? Side: Favor
2
points
The Great Depression was no fault of capitalism. It was the failure of government. The government injected the money supply far over an sustainable amount into the economy and later raised taxes. Economic recessions and depressions are a byproduct of central banks. Central banks send the economy in inflationary and deflationary periods because of the central banks inadequately ability to managed the economy. How to resolve? Simple, End the Fed. And move back to the gold standard where money is sound, and retains value. Real Wall Street Reform is no reform at all. If companies fail, allow them to fail. So, they will have an incentive to run a bank or business more prudently instead of reckless endangerment where the federal reserve will bail them out. Side: Oppose
Wall Street reform? Ah, if I take a pile of dung which was in the shape of a cube, and reform it into the shape of sphere, have I not then reformed dung? I know, someone will inevitable argue that Wall Street is the fourth branch of government. Proposal: dismantle Wall Street now. (Hath not Wall Street demonstrated that it can legally fuck Main Street?!) Note: if there is a successful attempt to reform Wall Street I promise it will both endorse “too big to fail” and Main Street’s addiction to Wall Street. Tag: Dismantle, don't Reform! Side: Oppose
1
point
The Fed is the offspring Wall Street. If we "End the Fed", Wall Street will give life to another Fed. After all, the Fed is the offspring of the un-holy mating of Wall Street and Washington. (I think we can agree that Wall Street loves the tender mercies of the Fed's regulations. Hell, some may even call them blessings.) Side: Oppose
0
points
Just another excuse for this government to grab power. This reform does not hurt wall street. It creates a permanent TARP fund, extending the promise of a pre-paid bailout to whoever wants it. This is why wall street is for the bill. Look past the smoke screen. All politicians are in the pockets of big money, not just republicans. Also, why does nobody remember we are in this mess because of high risk loans, most of which were required by the govt. Fannie and Freddie are almost never brought up anymore, as the media has put an incredible spin on the recession blaming it on deregulation, allowing them to grab even more power. Side: Oppose
|
