Go Home

Dodd-Frank

4 documents found in 0 seconds.

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (140)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1107)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Someone needs to explain the definition of insanity to Bloody Bill Kristol. During a discussion on Fox' Special Report With Bret Baier, Kristol was asked about the Republicans and their recent efforts to "rebrand" the party, and it seems Kristol believes if they just start obstructing President Obama again and vote for things like repealing "Obamacare," they won't have to worry about how they look!

Of course, no one on the panel pointed out to him that that is exactly what they've been doing already for the last four years and it hasn't gone so well. Not that what the others want to do -- keep the same policies but just try to make them sound more palatable to the public -- is going to work, either.

And note to Kristol: Your party doesn't care about doing anything to improve access to health care, making it more affordable or regulating the banks. We don't need to hear their words or yours to know that. All we have to do is look at their voting records to see what their priorities are. The notion that the GOP has any alternatives to fixing anything that is not more of the same is laughable.

Here's more from Real Clear Politics: Kristol: GOP Should Worry Less About Looks; Act On Conservative Principles:

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: If I hear another politician talking about rebranding the party or changing the image, why don't they just advance policies? Republicans control the House of Representatives, right? They very much dislike Obamacare. Fine, pass a bill repealing Obamacare or delaying it and then pass a replacement. It's not going to pass the Senate, President Obama's not going to sign it, but it will show how Republican policies help.

Republicans dislike the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, pass different regulations that help community banks. If you can't pass the whole thing, pass bite-sized pieces of legislation that would help the country. I mean, I really think they should talk less about rebranding themselves and actually pass some legislation, either big legislation or medium-sized bites that which embody conservative principals.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS: Why have they been losing so badly on messaging, Bill?

KRISTOL: They haven't been losing that badly on messaging. They lost the presidential election by 3 points, they held the House of Representatives, the Democrats got 1 million more votes for the complete House out of 110 million cast, or something like that. And if they simply govern effectively, if they do their best in the House and they oppose President Obama, they'll do fine. They should worry less about how they look and they should just act according to conservative principles.

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (514)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (7193)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Jon Stewart took the members of the United States Senate Banking Committee to task after their disgusting display this week where they were fawning all over JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon. Not surprising, as Stewart pointed out, given Dimon is one of their largest campaign donors. As Stewart concluded after going through the list of reforms that these Republicans have opposed in regulating the banks:

STEWART: Must be nice to be a Republican Senator sometimes, because you get the fun of breaking sh*t and the joy of complaining the sh*t you just broke doesn’t work.

Here's more from TPM on this week's hearing: Senators Fawn Over JPMorgan CEO After Massive Trading Debacle:

The long-shot big hope for Wall Street reformers Wednesday was that JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon would trip up before the Senate Banking Committee and expose the need for tighter rules governing big banks. His firm, after all, recently lost billions making risky bets with depositor funds on the line.

Instead, with some notable exceptions, the senators themselves turned the cross-examination into a coronation, and exposed the extent to which elected officials still feel compelled to genuflect to powerful financial interests.

“You’re obviously renowned, rightfully so I think, as being one of the most, you know, one of the best CEOs in the country for financial institutions,” crooned Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). “You missed this, it’s a blip on the radar screen.”

Most of the fawning came from GOP senators who in addition to relying on Wall Street largesse remain engaged in a political campaign against President Obama’s 2010 financial reform law. But some Democrats also treated Dimon if not quite like royalty then perhaps as a trusted confidant. [...]

His exchanges with GOP senators were even more saccharine. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) — a tea party hero — gave Dimon a full pardon. “I really appreciate you voluntarily coming in to talk with us,” he said. “It is important that we talk about things happening in the industry. It helps us as we look forward and, hopefully, it will contribute to best practice scenarios in industry. I appreciate your emphasis on continuous quality improvement. We can hardly sit in judgment of your losing $2 billion. We lose twice that every day in Washington.”

Stewart went after DeMint for that ridiculous remark, asking if he thought spending money was the same as losing money.



House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Sunday dismissed financial regulations that could have stemmed $3 billion or more in losses on derivatives by JPMorgan Chase & Co. because the company "should be help accountable by the market."

"There’s no law against stupidity, no law against stupid trades," Boehner told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

"And as long as the positives, money wasn’t at risk, and as long as there’s no risk of a taxpayer bailout– they should be held accountable by the market and their shareholders -- and they are," the Speaker insisted.

Boehner also shrugged off the notion that implementation of the Dodd-Frank bank reform law could have prevented the losses.

"I don’t believe there’s anything in Dodd-Frank that would’ve prevented this activity at JPMorgan," he explained.

Boehner's comments echo presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's sentiment that the bank's losses are "the way America works."

“I would not rush to pass new legislation or new regulation,” Romney said during a Wednesday interview with Hot Air blogger Ed Morrissey. “This is, in the normal course of business, a large loss but certainly not one which is crippling or threatening to the institution.”

“This was not a loss to the taxpayers of America; this was a loss to shareholders and owners of JPMorgan and that’s the way America works,” the former Bain Capital executive explained. “The $2 billion JPMorgan lost, someone else gained.”

(h/t: Talking Points Memo)



Paul Volcker's Prescient Advice for Jamie Dimon

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (333)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1570)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Shortly after Jamie Dimon's appearance on Fox last month, PBS's Bill Moyers had former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and head of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Paul Volcker, whose namesake is the Volcker rule that Wall Street has been lobbying so hard to water down or get rid of, as his guest.

In light of the recent debacle at JPMorgan Chase where Dimon's company lost at least $2 billion on high risk derivatives trading, his advice for Dimon during this interview is downright prescient; If you want to participate in proprietary trading, give up your banking license.

Paul Volcker on the Volcker Rule:

You’d think after such a calamitous economic fall, there’d be a strong consensus on reinforcing the protections that keep us out of harm’s way. But in some powerful corners, the opposite is happening. Business and political forces, including hordes of lobbyists, are working hard to diminish or destroy these protections. One of the biggest bull’s-eyes is on the Volcker Rule, a section of the Dodd-Frank Act that aims to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling it on their own — sometimes risky — investments. [...]

Volcker contends the rule aims to curb conflicts of interest between bankers and their customers. He suggests that former investment companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which sought banking licenses during the economic crisis in order to access federal protection against failing, should now turn in those licenses if they want to do speculative trading.

“You shouldn’t run a financial system on the expectation of government support. We’re supposed to be a free enterprise system,” Volcker tells Moyers. “The problem of course is once they get rescued, does that lead to the conclusion they’ll get rescued in the future?”

Transcript of the clip below the fold and you can watch the entire interview at the link above.

Continue reading »