President Obama takes on the financial industry

These are some of the same politicians who wanted the federal reserve to fail in the first place. Their "worries" are fears that the fed might actually succeed. The guru of destroying the public sector, Grover Norquist, has said as much in recent years. Bush and company simply did their best to make sure that both the fed and other regulatory agencies were as ineffective and feckless as possible. Every time Obama proposes new regulations, Norquist and his noise machince go on the offensive about big government. Big government is not the problem; lack of oversight over the out-of-control free market capitallists is the problem.

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

Where are you getting that from?

Where are you getting that from?

What are you asserting here? How did Bush make the Federal Reserve ineffective? I can understand deregulation and lack of regulation but can you elaborate on the rest of what you are asserting? And can you provide some support for your assertions?

I posted the links so that you could read for yourself the reasons lawmakers do not support Obama's financial overhaul. Most agree that stronger oversight of Wall Street is needed. The lawmakers aren't identifying a fear or worry over big government. As I stated previously and posted a link of the Inspector General in a hearing discussing major problems in the Fed. The lawmakers realize that the Fed has it's hands full with its current duties and responsibilities, with stabilizing the economy in recession and that there may be conflicts of interest with the new suggested powers. This is not about Grover Norquist or his views. The following is from the first link. Chris Dodd is a Democrat and an Obama supporter and he isn't supporting the Obama overhaul:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, questioned why the Fed should be given more power when many experts question its track record. Its proposed new role as the regulator of systemic risk also could conflict with its primary role of setting monetary policy, he said.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said it was unrealistic to expect the Fed to handle so many roles. He contended its structure isn’t suited for the role of a risk regulator. Plus, Shelby said, Congress has not spent enough time discussing the concept of systemic risk and how — or if — it can be regulated. - Kent Hoover, Charlotte Business Journal

Senators skeptical about Obama plan

Some Lawmakers Question Expanded Reach for the Fed

Obama's Financial Reform: Fed Powers Worries Some In Congress

Treasury's Geithner takes heat at hearing on Obama financial reform plan

Bush made the Fed ineffective by insisting that it be underfunded, along with every other agency that does regulation. The FED could easily be expanded to perform other functions if funded and staffed adequately. and Richard Shelby is HARDLY the person to speak on behalf of this function of the FED.
The elected officials YOU identify as opposing an expanded role for the FED are the same ones receiving HUGE campaign donations from corporate lobbyists , in both parties, that DONT want the Fed to do much of anything outside of promoting the status quo. Wake up and follow the money trail!

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

Gallery Photos (10)

Obama doesn't know a damn thing about finance, and he knows it. These new 'regulations' are a bullshit facade to make the public think things are actually going to change in the financial industry.

If you look at Obama's plan, there really is no plan. He has said he's giving more power to the Fed, and that's pretty much the extent of it. What powers? What is the Fed, an independent entity, going to do?

If Obama wants to make effective regulations, he can start by changing the terms of credit default swaps. CDS's are the reason this crisis is multiplied by 10, at least monetarily speaking. Either stop referring to CDS's as insurance and require they be accounted for on balance sheets, or keep them as 'insurance' but make it illegal for outside parties to purchase swaps against securities they don't currently hold.

Afterall, I can't take out a life insurance policy on my girlfriend, murder her, and collect the profits...this is exactly what hedge funds and investments banks were doing, except it was stock prices they were murdering, and profits off of short positions and credit default swaps they were gaining.

We need to attack the problem head on, and so far, the adminstration seems to have its head in the clouds when it comes to regulation. Obama really doesn't know much about the finance industry, which means he is getting most of his ideas from his advisors, who are mostly all wall streeters that don't want to change the most important and costly flaws of the system, flaws that allow large investors to destroy stock holder wealth and market confidence while their firms reap the benefits...essentially destroying companies with the use of credit default swaps and short selling. Giving more power to the Fed is going to destroy our country...good thing I'm past caring at this point

unlike recent presidents, Obama is a quick learner. This serves the interests of the public in that Obama is NOT a wall streeter, and has both the brains and the self-interest to recognize when he is being lied to.
At this point, only the Fed has the power, within our current consitutional guidelines, to watdhdog wallstreet. Depending on the relationship between Bernanke and Obama, we either will or wont see increased regulation power by the FED pay off for the American people. It is a risk we have to take to get any worthwhile change.
and i am NOT past caring. and the Fed is not destroying our nation, that job is , so far , unsuccessfully being attempted by the right wing.

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

Where did Bush insist the Fed and other agencies be underfunded...citation?

So, you have a conspiracy theory that includes lawmakers from both parties who are in the pocket of corporate lobbyists and former president Bush, Grover Norquist and Ron Paul all in cohoots to destroy the Fed?

The Federal Reserve has trillions of dollars unaccounted for. With that track record, some lawmakers from both parties are wisely not in favor of expanding its powers and creating a conflict of interest. The problems with the Fed's balance sheet cannot be blamed on Bush.

Obama has no idea what he doing. And he doesn't know who to listen to when he convenes panel after panel of experts and advisors. His haphazzard approach to the Auto Industry has left it in shambles. This overhaul to the financial industry is garnering more trepidation and with good reason.

Not so. Obama is actually stripping powers from other financial regulation agencies and giving them to the Fed which is supposed to be independent. There is also some uproar over Obama challenging that independence by having some reporting to the White House. Obama is also proposing taking away one duty from the Fed and giving it to a new entity. The SEC already is authorized with most of these powers. (oh, There have been arguments that the SEC was underfunded and understaffed under Bush but that's not true:
Enough Of This Nonsense: George Bush Grew The SEC)

So many had a part in the financial crisis and the list includes many Democrats Dodd, Frank...even Pres. Clinton admitted not regulating derivatives enough. The break down in regulation in the SEC oversight to stop the Madoffs and even in the Federal Reserve to prevent the mortgage crisis:

Policy makers will resist President Barack Obama’s blueprint because its new Consumer Financial Protection Agency would supplant the Fed’s authority to write rules on lending and disclosure practices on mortgages and credit cards.

Congressional leaders criticized the Fed for foot-dragging on consumer protection as originations of subprime mortgages to borrowers with blemished or limited credit histories doubled in three years to around $600 billion in 2006. The subprime lending bust ignited the global credit crisis in 2007.

Many do not agree with Obama that giving the those powers to the Fed with trillions of dollars currently unaccounted for is wise. It could also be a conflict of interest. Obama's overhaul is basically half baked.

Bernanke is flooding the markets with unbacked dollars. Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress are deficit spending like there is no tomorrow. It remains to be seen if Bernanke, Obama and Congress are destroying our nation. But people with common sense are speaking up before the nation is destroyed and it is too late.

Gallery Photos (2)

Just checking to see if the sky has indeed fallen. Carry on.

Let's put it out there for everyone to see. Yes, I am an a**hole... But only to those who deserve it. Now that we've established that, what do you want to say to me?

-----------------
"Sometimes you have to forego doing what's popular in order to do what's right." - Mo'Nique

"No matter how fancy the party is, they always have 'pigs in a blanket'." - Helena Troy

"I have a policy about honesty and ass-kicking. If you ask for it, then I have to let you have it." - Taylor Mali

No, the sky is not falling, now that Obama has propped it up with the helpl of the FED. and where the hell were you guys when the sky WAS falling? I was neck deep in the Obama campaign.
and BTW, mr. Dodd has had two change of hearts: 1. he now supports the obama financial reform plan. 2. he has also changed his mind on gay marriage. A twofer!

and the Fed hasnt backed the dollar with any metal or anything else for a long time. where have you been?
and as far as the FED is concerned, you clearly did not see the 60 minutes interview with Bernanke 6 weeks ago. i think Bernanke made a good case for why the Fed is the right place to take on unregulated greed.
and as to deficit spending, where were you when Bush spent billions on NOTHING but bribes and handouts to corrupt Iraqi warlords and local despots? He drove us into this ditch, thanks to welfare handouts to the pentagon. Wake the hell up !

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

Dodd supports an alternative plan to strip the Fed of its regulatory powers.

Clearly you don't get it:

Wall Street Journal:
By JON HILSENRATH and DAMIAN PALETTA

More recently, the Fed has funded programs by flooding the financial system with money it created itself -- known in central-banking circles as bank reserves -- and has used the money to make loans and purchase assets.

Some economists worry about the consequences of this approach. Fed officials could find it challenging to remove the cash from the system once markets stabilize and the economy improves. It's not a problem now, but if they're too slow to act later it can cause inflation.

InvestorCentric and The Prudent Investor

The U.S. Treasury has not been able to keep up with the monetary demands from the Fed which lead them to request the authority to print their own debt. In what has to be considered a ridiculous run up in the national debt of late, this move just compounds the potential problems. This is leading some people to question the validity of U.S. sovereign debt. Is the U.S. government running the biggest ponzi scheme in history? It sure seems like it.

According to the story based on sources "familiar with the matter" the Fed considers to issue its own debt. This would allow the Fed to circumvent banks as intermediaries, possibly leading to a recovery of capital markets. But it could also lead to a situation where the Fed would be a direct competitor to the US Treasury in debt issuance.

While the privately owned Fed's right to print unbacked fiat money is already constitutionally doubtful (see my sidebar) even the Federal Reserve Act does not explicitly permit the Fed to issue debt either.

You don't pay attention. An interview on 60 minutes means absolutely nothing when the Fed can't account for trillions of dollars to the one agency that has oversight:

Youtube - Inspector General grilled when The US Federal Reserve cannot account for 9 trillion dollars


There really is no reason to answer you anymore...it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Always good to hear "Bush did it, why can't Obama though." (Not addressing the ridiculous accusations made because they are silly)

If we were driven into a ditch by Bush, Obama, the Democratically controlled congress and the current Federal Reserve actions are trying to drive us off a cliff. It is time to shore up the Fed's balance sheets, tighten Wall Street regulations under the SEC and FDIC, and stop Obama and Congress from deficit spending.

Take your own advice and wake up...better yet catch a clue.

Your dependence on the wall street jounral indicates YOU DONT GET IT. they are NOT a credible source of news for anyone except the apologists on wall street. The GOP took us off this cliff, and Obama is trying to help us climb up it.
Either you have amnesia about the last 4 years or are in denial.
you need more than to simply catch a clue, you need to do more investigation than simply relying on the same news sources that WONT cover news that does not promote the views of wall street status quo seekers.

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

Your failure to reference anything of substance and credibility demonstrates that you simply throw out unfounded baseless accusations. WSJ is a highly credible source.

Obama's financial industry overhaul plan does not have the support of many lawmakers (including several in his own party leadership).

Perhaps you want to rely on rhetoric with Obama and sing of Obama saving us from falling off cliffs...but back in reality, the facts still remain:

Obama proposes to strip powers from other Regulatory agencies and give them to the Fed which is not an inspiration of confidence due to several performance issues including currently being unable to account for several trillions of dollars on its balance sheet, in addition the Fed currently has it's hands full with managing the markets and stabilizing the economy and the changes would likely create a conflict of interest.

For those reasons and others, Obama's plan is the wrong plan to address the problems on Wall Street.

Gallery Photos (10)

Unfortunately, most of the things you have said here aren't very accurate. The Fed has very little regulatory power over wallstreet, very little. Yes, it does have some say in the bond market and the cost of capital, but certainly not in the credit derivative market, the ratings business, insurance business, or securitization business, which is where the regulations are needed. The SEC and Congress have much more authority than the Fed in terms of regulatory power...the problem is the people in charge of regulation were either asleep at the wheel or incompitent, most likely both. Allan Greenspan himself said in an interview, after he had stepped down, that he did not understand the derivatives being traded on the street. How can we have regulation if our regulators don't understand the financial instruments being sold?

You can bet your life that there are no more than a handful of current lawmakers who actually have a firm grasp of what caused this crisis and how to go about fixing it. Our elected officials are mostly lawyers and career politicians, very few of them know much of finance and the complexities of today's markets. This is a bi-partisan problem. Democrats got the ball rolling, Republicans accelerated it, and NO ONE stopped it before it blew up.

I still don't understand why people are so against auditing the Federal Reserve...too afraid to learn the truth about the Great American Ponzi Scheme?

Interesting how everyone except Americans knows that the US government is exceptionally corrupt and fraudulent...

Once again, the wall street folks like yourselves can see no further than the Hudson River. congress can expand the powers of the federal reserve. We have to have an agency that can oversee wall street that is NOT dominated by congress or the white house. The SEC has proven that it cant; even Mc cain called for mr. cox resignation during the campaign. the treasury dept. cant, as it has too many other duties. we cant trust congressional committees to do it; they are nearly all recipients of finance corporate contributions to their campaigns, in both parties. You apparently would prefer that there be none; that is how we got into this mess in the first place. The Wall street journal publishes opinions and articles that support its mind set; no regulations, "free"markets, unrestricted cancerous capitalism at its WORST. Free markets are NOT FREE; they are paid for by the many low wage workers who are exploited by the major banks and finance corporations who do everything they can to promote a mutlticlass society in the US.
For our nation's survival as a democracy, we must have more regulation, limits on corporate bonuses, restrictions on mergers, clarity and transparency in the manipulation of derivatives and hedge funds. You want the keep starus quo and to demonize the Fed. May i remind you that Alan Grreenspan is NOT Ben Bernanke.
For all of Bernanke's imperfections, and there are more than a few, he is NOT to blame for our economic depression. Bush and company are the culprits. and there is not one shred of evidence to the contrary. The american people know it , and someday, maybe, you will figure it out as well.

CRUZTBONE OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST

You have a baseless argument and you lack knowledge of what you speak. You've been proven inaccurate and your opinion isn't substantive enough to illicit support.

Obama's financial overhaul is not supported by lawmakers because it isn't the right plan...period. You don't seem to understand the specifics so that is all that needs to be stated to you.

QFT. Anyone who uses the WSJ as a resource isn't really serious. They are a joke, a fraud just like the WSJ and the rest of The Fifth Column that once controlled all branches of government. And who know are desperately trying to get back into power but the same tired slogans no longer work and they have no new ones to hoodwink the benighted.

"The fundamental driving force for humanity is the genital friction that produces more people. We are plague mammals, and plague mammals multiply fantastically until just before the last generation." - Lynn Margulis