Wait a minute..... Obama's "sweeping regulation" of the financial sector is

[Sebastian Doyle]

to put it all under the supervision of the so-called "Federal Reserve"???

Shit, that's like putting "the coalition to stop pedophilia" under control of the Catholic Church!

Private banks - and thats what the fucking corrupt ass criminal "Federal Reserve" is - cannot regulate their fellow fucking corrupt ass criminals.

Mr. President, we do not need "sweeping new regulation" which in reality is no regulation at all.

We need to return to the OLD regulations, as it existed before the Bush Crime Family started attacking them in 1981.

FDR shut these criminals down, and they stayed shut down until 1980. THAT is what worked. Why not go back to it?

[Joanne98]

1. I know. What a joke!

[phleshdef]

15. The only thing funny is that you took the OP on their uninformed word without looking into it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

25. Uninformed?

Pull those pom poms out of your ass long enough to take an objective look at reality.

Would you hand an automatic weapon to a convicted bank robber and tell him to go "regulate" other bank robbers?

Because that's exactly what this is.

[babylonsister]

2. Did the story change from this a.m.?

In huge change, Obama to strip Fed of credit card oversight

Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel overseeing bailout spending, talks to McClatchy reporters about the president's proposed regulatory changes.
(video @ link)

By Kevin G. Hall and Tony Pugh | McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — Among the sweeping changes in government regulation that President Barack Obama will propose Wednesday is the creation of an independent and powerful Consumer Financial Product Safety Commission to regulate financial products such as mortgages and credit cards.

With an eye toward protecting consumers and ordinary investors, the Federal Reserve and other bank regulators would lose their oversight over mortgages, credit cards and other financial products that are sold to consumers. It's a radical shift in approach and a tacit acknowledgment of federal failure.

"Lets face it, the (Federal Reserve Board) has had the power to engage in aggressive consumer regulation at least since 1994," Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversees how Wall Street bailout money is being spent, told McClatchy in an interview. "They clearly had the power to stop the mortgage crisis before it started. And what did they do with that power? Nothing."

Warren's view was echoed by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the influential House Financial Services Committee, which will write the legislation to implement and perhaps build on Obama's proposals.

"We definitely should take consumer protection away from the Fed," Frank said.

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/70192.html

[phleshdef]

6. Like a lot of people tend to do around here, the OP ignored many details...

...and went for something they could gripe about without taking into account everything that was introduced. Its crazy because the Fed is actually losing power.

[Cha]

11. And, they get their little ..

"oh yeah, what joke!:silly:"

[Sebastian Doyle]

12. I wasn't talking about credit cards or mortgages

But that makes this even more fucked up.... on one hand, he's admitting that the Fed fucked up in regulating mortgages and credit cards, and on the other hand, he's giving the Fed MORE power to regulate the financial markets. Which they will also fuck up. In ways that benefit the private banks that own the "Fed", no doubt.

One of the more controversial proposals expected from Obama would give the Federal Reserve greater power to act as a systemic risk regulator. This would expand the Fed's mission, most often associated with fighting inflation and setting interest rates.

One of the saddest lessons of the current financial crisis, the worst in seven decades, is that while several regulators saw bits and pieces of a mounting problem, no single entity knew what was going on across the entire financial sector.

That encouraged big financial companies to shop around for the regulator of least resistance, or in the case of mortgage finance gave rise to non-bank lenders that escaped virtually all federal oversight. Opaque financial instruments flourished with virtually no government supervision.

To remedy this, Obama wants to have the Fed gauge whether companies that are deemed so big that they pose a risk to the global financial system have adequate reserves in case the economy sours. The Fed and other regulators will expand reporting requirements and look at a wider scope of a bank's investments.

<snip>

Some lawmakers worry that too much power may be placed in the hands of the autonomous Fed. That's given rise to calls for a "council of regulators" or a "financial stability council," that at minimum would work alongside the Fed in policing financial markets for systemwide risks.

<snip>

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said recently that he's open to the idea of a "council" approach, but that the administration wants a single entity, the Fed, to have the lead on system-wide vigilance.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/white-house/story/70032.html

[babylonsister]

22. This was just introduced, so I'm waiting to see the

reactions it gets before panicking. I did read this bit.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FINANCIAL_OVERHAUL?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

snip//

"There will be maybe some debate ... but I think we're all seeking the same results," Dodd said. He has advocated an alternative plan to strip the Federal Reserve of its regulatory role entirely and create a new consolidated bank regulator who would assume the roles that the Fed and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. now play in helping regulate state-chartered banks. "There's not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this juncture," Dodd said.

Asked about Dodd's criticism of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters at a briefing that the administration had looked at a range of alternatives to giving the Fed expanded powers as a systemic risk regulator and had come to the conclusion that "we do not believe there is a plausible alternative."

snip//

Under Obama's plan, the Federal Reserve would gain power to supervise holding companies and large financial institutions considered so big that their failure could undermine the nation's financial system. But even as it gained new powers, the Fed would lose some banking authority to the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Obama's proposal would require the Fed, which now can independently use emergency powers to bail out failing banks, to first obtain Treasury Department approval before extending credit to institutions in "unusual and exigent circumstances," a change designed to mollify critics who charged that the Fed needed to be more accountable in exercising its powers as a lender of last resort.

Private analysts generally gave the administration good marks for the efforts it had put forward although some powerful lobbying groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, expressed opposition to parts of the plan.

Would the changes have prevented the current crisis?

"The Obama plan might not have forestalled the current crisis but it would have made it less severe and certainly not as catastrophic as it turned out to be," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com and the author of a recent book on the housing crisis.

In conjunction with the Fed's authority over large financial institutions and the new consumer agency, Obama also proposed:

- Additional protections for investors, including greater disclosure by hedge funds, regulation of credit default swaps and over-the-counter derivatives that previously operated outside of government oversight, and new conditions on brokers and originators of asset-backed securities.

- A system for the orderly disposition of any troubled, interconnected firm whose failure would pose a risk to the entire financial system, together with rules that insist that financial institutions hold more capital for safety's sake.

---

[Thrill]

3. Someone didn't actually listen to the whole speech or read the Regulations

.

[4lbs]

7. Seems to be happening quite a bit lately. They just respond to the headline. (n/t)

.

[vaberella]

8. It's mind numbing...really! I think it's a pandemic case at this point on DU. Level 6.n/t

[Peacetrain]

18. You start to feel like you are pulling along through

massive amounts of pudding. It wears a person out, having to go back and pull out all the facts that refute the headline.


A few have posted along the lines, that some of us are perpetual cheerleaders.. Not stopping to look at what we have to do on a day to day basis, in finding the truth behind the outrage.

[DrToast]

9. Order of business: 1) Outrage 2) Read the plan 3) Move on to next issue

:shrug:

[vaberella]

10. +1. n/t

[phleshdef]

13. I know. Another BS gripe. Are the rational people finally being overran on DU or what?

Because this shit is really starting to turn me off. I don't mind rational criticism, but this "short attention span, armchair punditry" stuff is wearing me down. The culprits are doing a lot more to turn away people from their issues than they are turning people away from Obama.

[On the Road]

17. If People are of the Belief

that the Federal Reserve, Treasury, the FDIC, and similar institutions are nothing but "fucking corrupt ass criminals" probably should by on an Indymedia board.

[phleshdef]

21. Yea. The fed is fine when the right mission is given and the right people are there.

Not that I think its perfect as it is right now or anything. But seriously, its just like any other government institution. FEMA was corrupt under Bush and was not under Clinton. The White House itself was corrupt under Bush but so far really isn't under Obama. If you have that much of a chip on your shoulder towards the Fed, then go join the Ron Paul weirdos or something.

[Papa Boule]

4. self-delete n/m

[redqueen]

14. Heh.

Welcome to DU.

[redqueen]

5. *roffle*

[vaberella]

16. Who rec'd this thread, I wonder. n/t

[Froward69]

19. Hold on a minute...

FDR put Joe Kennedy in charge of regulation once. with the idea it took a swindler to catch swindlers.
now I am gonna take a wait and see approach. Granted my patience is wearing thin with President Obama. but he (for the most part) out thinks and comes through for the rest of us.

[scheming daemons]

20. YAY! Another thread of outrage based on a headline without reading the actual story!

It's an epidemic.

[dionysus]

23. elevens!!1!!111!!!1!!!

:woohoo:

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Yeah, there's an epidemic in this thread alright.

Cheerleaderitis. :puke:

The Federal Reserve is the fucking problem. They are not the solution. I want to know who put a gun to Obama's head (probably literally) and told him to hire Timmy the Keebler Elf and Larry "kickbacks from Goldman Sachs and Shittibank" Summers in the first place.

Private Banks - and that's what the "federal reserve" is - are incapable of regulating other private banks.

FDR's regulations kept these fucking bastards in check. Isn't it reasonable to go back to what worked instead of giving more power to the criminal pieces of shit who caused the problems in the first place?

[dreamnightwind]

26. +1

[depakid]

27. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about

and a good guess is that you don't either.

[democracy1st]

28. Why you say that ?