What's in the New Financial Reform Bill
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-19/whats-new-financial-reform-bill
President Barrack Obama meets in the Oval Office with members of the Senate Finance Committee on Aug. 6, 2009
Official White House photo by Pete Souza via Flickr
What's next for consumers and business after Congress approves the largest overhaul of financial regulations since the Great Depression. How the new rules could re-shape Wall Street.
Guests
Senator Christopher Dodd
Democratic U.S. senator from Connecticut and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Neal Wolin
deputy secretary of the Department of the Treasury.
Damian Paletta
reporter, The Wall Street Journal.
Alexis Simendinger
Senate correspondent for the National Journal.
Binyamin Appelbaum
reporter, The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Without shrinking the size of the to big to fail banks, how can the president possibly claim to have ended the government bailouts for big banks. If the banks are still just as big when they get in trouble again they will still be to big to fail if and when the weak regulatory safeguards either don't work or prove to be inadequate?
Also at the size and influence of these institutions they already have the power to use the government to do there bidding what about this fact will the new regulations change?
Without shrinking the size of the to big to fail banks, how can the president possibly claim to have ended the government bailouts for big banks. If the banks are still just as big when they get in trouble again they will still be to big to fail if and when the weak regulatory safeguards either don't work or prove to be inadequate?
Also at the size and influence of these institutions they already have the power to use the government to do there bidding what about this fact will the new regulations change?
It does not address the immense problems of Fannie + Freddie!!! They were ONE of the basic causes of the meltdown! That being the case, I think the word "nefarious" applies to this thing they dishonestly call financial "reform".
Elizabeth Warren is exactly who we need to run the new agency. If she is appointed this agency will be the first in history to operate in the peoples' interest and not be bought by the industry it regulates.
Those who oppose her are just shills for industry like Timothy Geitner who is another Goldman crony.
About Elizabeth Warren's appointment as head of Consumer Protection Agency: The banking industry does not need another advocate. They have paid lobbyists, politicians and a lot of money. Appointing someone who is more sensitive to the banking industry is continuing the status quo. The fact is most consumers are not educated enough to make sound financial decisions; the industry counts on that and look where that got us. Appointing someone who will be on the side of consumers is the ONLY way to make any significant change
Your critique of Elizabeth Warren not representing the banks enough. . . she would be representing The People. I don't feel sorry for banks getting representation. The people need to be represented and lobbists are heavily weighted for the banks. This could be Obama's true legislation for the people
As to Freddy and Fanny, the republicans can try and use this as some sort of political attack meme, but All the loan schemes and whatever were happening under their watch, they controlled congress, and they weren't doing their jobs!!!! Just like much of the over site of the other agencies and much more, Not done while they controlled!!
Oh, for Pete's sake - haven't you heard all the (true) conservatives who've denounced Bush + his policies for a long time now!
The Fannie and Freddie structure was doomed once it had two masters: public and private.
The "on their watch" argument is a tricky one. Things didn't change much or get much better since Democrats got control of Congress in 06 or of the WH in 08.
My only concern in financial reform is that the US loses out competitively if banks take some of this business to other countries to avoid US regulation.
This propaganda piece does a disservice to WAMU's listeners. Asking Neil Wolin from Treasury and Chris Dodd about this bill would be like asking Ari Fleischer how the Iraq war was going in 2004. As it is - this entire segment was a complete joke. How about interviewing some people that actually predicted the financial crisis because they understand the root causes? Why don't you have Peter Schiff (eminent economist and Senate candidate in Connecticut running for Chris Dodd's old seat www.schiffforsenate.com) or Thomas Woods on? Instead you bring on these guests that take their marching orders from very people (Dodd, Frank, McCain, Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson, Obama, Bush, etc.) that claimed up until the crash of 2008 that the financial system was in fine shape.
The administration (and indeed the prior ones) and the leadership of both the Dems and GOP are OWNED by the banking industry, which this legislation reflects. Real reform would remove the government guarantees and backstops from the financial industry, abolish bailouts, and investigate and prosecute those responsible for the last crisis (starting with the CONgress). Instead we're just getting more of the same - moral hazard heaped upon moral hazard. Ever more subsidization of the massive too-big-to-fail banks on the backs of their smaller competitors. Disgusting!
Please stop carrying the establishment's water on these legislative travesties being foisted on the American people. Your listeners deserve far better than you are giving them. The government created the financial crisis to benefit itself and its backers - the big banks. This bill will only help those same powerful interest groups on our backs.
We help Americans move to Asia for jobs and prosperity. Learn more at http://www.pathtoasia.com/services/
In all of your discussion I was surprised that no one referred to Dr Warren as Dr Warren rather than Elizabeth. In any other forum, business meeting or discussion a person such as Mr. Neil Wolin from Treasury using the first name in such a manner would be taken to task as demeaning of her standing and credentials...especially when no one refers to Secretary Geitner as Tim or should they. But it creates this 'positional and power' mismatch as it reduces her credibility by omitting her earned title and credentials. Even your commentators referred to her by her first name rather than with her proper title. I doubt that would have been the case for a male. If she had been present and requested or offered people that option, that would be very different, but that was not the case.
I am disappointed no one stopped to refer to her by her title, which in my opinion was well earned. As an aside, I would be very disappointed if she is not appointed to the position to lead the new Consumer Protection Agency.
Rich