Obama wants your freedom!! Its in writing!!

reply to post by whatukno


Hey man, get off it. You are obviously a disinfo agent sent here to try and make the benevolent financial institutions look bad. They are our saviors and no matter how rich they get, we need to do everything we can to ensure they are allowed to get more, even by illegal means. I do not care if I lose my house, there is no way I am letting the CEO of a bank lose a spot at a golf course just because he is not able circumvent the law at taxpayer expense.

What is wrong with you? Do you not realize how much you need these folks to get away with the things they do? Without them, who would you pay to hold your money for you?

For those that continue fail to understand the scope of legislation this large and for those who get their information from media matters and the daily TPM. Open your eyes or simply remove your blinders.

This bill does not represent reform. This bill represents regulation. Nothing in this legislation is aimed at restructuring the BIG Wall Street Big Banks that you all loathe or Fannie and Freddie. The too big to fail flag is still flying and will be flying long after this becomes law. (if it becomes law). These banks were allowed and encouraged to gobble up small banks by the govt. We fed them bailout dollars etc etc. Now we have monster banks that are being propped up by the govt.

I hear the same cries over and over of bad banks, evil corporations and evil scam artists. Sure some of those issues are addressed but they were already addressed with existing laws to begin with. If someone disagrees with this legislation they are evil supporters of big business.

Read between lines of the White House bullet points and look beyond the rhetoric of the president who wants to rush this bill through to "ensure the economic future of our children". If he cared about the future of my children he wouldn't have tripled our deficit since he took office.

What about an already BIG govt. getting bigger by the day that is fully funded by your tax dollars? Which is worse?

Once again we are expected to believe, just as we were with obamacare, that the panacea approach is the best approach. Any ideas to scale it back to tackle specific concerns have been booted and the proposal to reform Fannie and Freddie was disregarded.

Remember once again that this is Regulation not reform or restructuring. Wall Street’s big banks are simply too big, and their massive ability to draw on commercial deposits for investment banking activities, including derivatives, will just allow them to keep growing and will subject the economy to ever greater risks in the future. No amount of regulation can solve that potential problem.

The REGULATORS will be the ones calling the shots and making the rules as they go along here. This bill exempts “customized” derivatives from the exchanges, but leaves it to regulators to define what contracts will actually be excused. So, what if the same derivatives that got us into trouble are deemed "customized" by these regulators?

Make sense???

I've had enough trying to explain this to the dum dums. Look out for the loopholes, the bargaining, and the revolving door of "regulators" and industry insiders/experts!!!!!!!!!!!! No substance, just red tape.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by jibeho


So to you, this line does not appear in the United States Constitution?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

From Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

YES IT IS REGULATION, regulation that has been lax the last 10 years. (mostly by Democrats during the Bush Administration)

But I guess your copy of the United States Constitution does not include the above line where it states that Congress does have the Constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

Glad your here to rewrite the Constitution as you see fit. Anything else you want to take away from it? Maybe you want to arbitrarily strike down a few amendments that you don't agree with either?

YES IT IS REGULATION, regulation that financial institutions so desperately need.

And so it passes! Mission accomplished. Right? Now comes the details as they slowly trickle out over the next several years.

Now the regulators/insiders get to sit back and come up with the rules and endless studies that will be required to establish the rules. Some estimate that no less than 500 new regulations will be born from this bill.

Among the first impacts of the bill, which Obama is expected to sign as early as Wednesday, will be the immediate creation of a 10-member Financial Stability Oversight Council, a powerful assembly of regulators chaired by the treasury secretary to keep watch over the entire financial system.

So, ten yet to be named experts supervised by the tax evading Geithner will be charged with the oversight of our entire financial system. This will be fun studying the connections of these new advisers to Wall Street and politics.

The Obama administration has one year to create a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Congress will keep its eye on that agency, eager to see whom Obama chooses as its director. The agency will have vast powers to enforce regulations covering mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

The above mentioned group and their authority is what really got my attention. However, notice any specific lenders missing here?? IF you guessed Fannie and Freddie you are correct.

But, there is still one more. Answer correctly and you win the Bonus round. Ding Ding Ding if you said car dealers. Yes, the lending practices of car dealers will be overlooked by this new law. 70% of all car buyers finance through the dealer. Certainly some dealers are more ethical than others so good luck. Just hope the existing laws are still able to protect you while all eyes will be on everything else.

One of the candidates often mentioned for the top consumer spot is Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who was among the first to suggest the creation of an agency to safeguard consumers in their financial transactions. Warren heads the Congressional Oversight Panel, which has been a watchdog over the Treasury Department's bank bailout fund. Others mentioned include Michael Barr, an assistant treasury secretary who has been one of the architects of the administration's regulatory plan.

More insiders and another Harvard Law School crony.

Don't keep your hopes up for any swift action though. This will take time.

But while the oversight council and the consumer bureau might bloom swiftly, other central provisions of the bill will take time, in some cases years, to take root.

The consumer bureau, for instance, has as long as 30 months after it is created for its regulations on predatory lending to take effect. The legislation calls for a two-year study before regulators write rules on how risk-rating agencies should avoid any conflict of interest with the firms whose financial products they assess.

cnsnews.com...

There are so many uncertainties with this that it will be like driving the nation off of a cliff. Uncertainty destroys consumer confidence and the confidence of investors, farmers (who rely heavily on derivatives) and small business owners.

Now we wait for the details just like with healthcare and we now have obamacare funded abortions. OH, well... enjoy the ride folks.

Looks like cap and trade is next on the to do list. I'm sure that will pass too. The dems in congress have granted Obama every wish and every dollar without even a blink so far. Whatever, happened to checks and balances?

I guess we'll find out this coming November when the passing of panic legislation comes to an end and the repeal process can begin!!!

I've had enough. Now the Obama sycophants can chime in with the usual Media Matters drivel and classic Na Na Na Na Na Na.... Congratulations to all of you. Enjoy it while you can because its going to be a short ride.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 16-7-2010 by jibeho]

reply to post by jibeho


Please, we are still sitting around doing nothing, okey something, but still sloow..

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Corporations are treated as individuals to a certain extent. Source.

Second, this bill isn't written by Obama, it may one day end up on his desk to be signed, but this isn't a product of Obama. Blame your congressman.

reply to post by ninthaxis

Second, this bill isn't written by Obama, it may one day end up on his desk to be signed, but this isn't a product of Obama. Blame your congressman.

Specifically Barney Frank.

But this isn't a bad bill. It's a step forward to actually regulate the market again. There was a time when the market was indeed regulated, and it was a good thing, the problem was, that the democrats during the early part of this decade decided to pass legislation to deregulate the market. The problem with that as we are all fully aware was that those people on Wall Street took advantage of that and started to play with everyone's 401ks in very risky ways. Well, we all know the end of that story don't we?

But, go ahead, listen to the OP, let him make outlandish claims that have no basis in reality, let him blame someone who had little to do with this bill for it's passing.

Sure he will sign it, but that's not a bad thing either, the markets need to be regulated so that we don't have a repeat of what happened before. I think the OP wants a repeat of what happened before so that he can blame the POTUS for not doing anything about it.

It's a sad day in this country when you want the country to fail just to stick it to one guy.

reply to post by whatukno


So, according to you I'm just making things up? The reality is in the legislation for those who care to see it. Nice job trying to redirect towards me without addressing any important issues.

I have indicated earlier in this thread that there are certainly positive aspects of the bill.

Do you support the exclusion Fannie and Freddie from this legislation? Don't forget their critical role in our current mess and the fact they still have access to a perpetual blank check.

Don't forget that the "too big to fail banks" will still be backed as usual. No restructuring and no reform.

Why no oversight on Car dealer lending practices? Could it have to do with the govts. own interest in GM and its $13 billion investment in GMAC as a whole.

Nothing in this legislation addresses those three enormous elephants in the room.

Legislation and regulation has always been present, it has just been ignored and not enforced. This bill simply creates more regulations that will ultimately be redefined or ignored in the future. It will create plenty of overpaid govt. jobs though.

I will eagerly readdress this issue when we learn more.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by whatukno

 

So, according to you I'm just making things up? The reality is in the legislation for those who care to see it. Nice job trying to redirect towards me without addressing any important issues.

I have indicated earlier in this thread that there are certainly positive aspects of the bill.

Do you support the exclusion Fannie and Freddie from this legislation? Don't forget their critical role in our current mess and the fact they still have access to a perpetual blank check.

Don't forget that the "too big to fail banks" will still be backed as usual. No restructuring and no reform.

Why no oversight on Car dealer lending practices? Could it have to do with the govts. own interest in GM and its $13 billion investment in GMAC as a whole.

Nothing in this legislation addresses those three enormous elephants in the room.

Legislation and regulation has always been present, it has just been ignored and not enforced. This bill simply creates more regulations that will ultimately be redefined or ignored in the future. It will create plenty of overpaid govt. jobs though.

I will eagerly readdress this issue when we learn more.

But the thing is, none of what you say is going to happen is in that bill so would that not mean you are indeed just making things up? I have looked and looked and there is no sign of the paranoid things you are claiming. Help me out here.

For those who refuse to link this bill to Obama....

The Dodd-Frank package and Wall Street reform was discussed and presented by Obama back in 2008 on the campaign trail during a critical speech in NY.

Obama on ‘Renewing the American Economy’


This was Obama's baby from day One. Is that enough reality for you. I can only blame congress for lacking the due diligence to properly debate the issue and to develop a detailed bipartisan plan that will actually accomplish something.

They prefer to just cave and grant Obama whatever he needs. Obama pledged bipartisan support and we haven't seen it yet in any of his monumental legislation.

This is the work of Obama and his handmaidens.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by whatukno

 

So, according to you I'm just making things up? The reality is in the legislation for those who care to see it. Nice job trying to redirect towards me without addressing any important issues.

I have indicated earlier in this thread that there are certainly positive aspects of the bill.

Do you support the exclusion Fannie and Freddie from this legislation? Don't forget their critical role in our current mess and the fact they still have access to a perpetual blank check.

Don't forget that the "too big to fail banks" will still be backed as usual. No restructuring and no reform.

Why no oversight on Car dealer lending practices? Could it have to do with the govts. own interest in GM and its $13 billion investment in GMAC as a whole.

Nothing in this legislation addresses those three enormous elephants in the room.

Legislation and regulation has always been present, it has just been ignored and not enforced. This bill simply creates more regulations that will ultimately be redefined or ignored in the future. It will create plenty of overpaid govt. jobs though.

I will eagerly readdress this issue when we learn more.

But the thing is, none of what you say is going to happen is in that bill so would that not mean you are indeed just making things up? I have looked and looked and there is no sign of the paranoid things you are claiming. Help me out here.

The omission of Fannie and Freddie are not lies!! The omission of Car dealers is not a lie. The support of the big banks is not a lie. There is also not plan to restructure these govt. backed big banks.

The added regulations and the regulators developing the rules is a reality. Its in the text. 10 people will now oversee our nations financial system.

Nice try.

Originally posted by jibeho
The omission of Fannie and Freddie are not lies!! The omission of Car dealers is not a lie. The support of the big banks is not a lie. There is also not plan to restructure these govt. backed big banks.

The added regulations and the regulators developing the rules is a reality. Its in the text. 10 people will now oversee our nations financial system.

Nice try.

Did you read the title and OP of your thread? None of these things have anything to do with my privacy. That is what it is you are failing to show.

reply to post by evil incarnate



You clearly have not read through the thread or read the provisions taken directly from the bill regarding privacy issues. I will not regurgitate for those who don't read. At the point of my last response I assumed that you had read everything else. My mistake.

Believe what you are told to believe. Some of us choose to dig deeper when we read something like this...

the Office of Financial Research, is empowered to collect “any data or information” from any financial organization or federal regulator. One of those regulators, Shelby pointed out, would be the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), which is empowered to collect a person’s ATM receipts and the addresses of depositors.

cnsnews.com...

reply to post by jibeho


And you still fail, you are taking someone's word for what it says instead of finding the wording itself in the bill itself.

CNS News is a right wing site, it's akin to trying to get unbiased news from mediamatters, it's just not going to happen.

So, instead of giving us snippets from some right wing spin group, do us a favor and look it up in the bill itself and give it to us straight.

reply to post by whatukno


So, just slight the source and disregard the facts. That seems to work for you.

The two leading culprits in the collapse of the housing and mortgage industry are completely exempt from this legislation and you can't seem to acknowledge that.

The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is established in title 10 and section 1017 details their budget will be 12 percent of the 2009 Federal Reserve System Operating Budget, approximately $646 million.

Section 1022 gives the BCFP authority to monitor consumer financial patterns and, “implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law.” Specifically, subsection C gives this new agency authority to “gather information and activities of persons operating in consumer financial markets.”

Furthermore, Section 1071 allows the BCFP to “use the data on branches and [individual and personal] deposit accounts . . . for any purpose.” Just as was stated in the OP. Never before has our federal government actively sought to compile such comprehensive data on every single personal and business financial transaction in the U.S. until now. You ok with that??

So, now the new office of Financial Research established in Title 1 can use the data collected by the BCFP to do essentially whatever they want with it.

www.govtrack.us...

reply to post by jibeho


And everything that you just listed is under the scope of Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. This is Regulation of Commerce.

Fannie and Freddie being government sponsored agencies have absolutely zero protections from government prying eyes, therefore, they didn't need to be listed, as the government can look at absolutely everything Fannie and Freddie does. They aren't exempt at all the government can look at all their records at any time because the government gives them the majority of their budget.

But regulation is part and parcel of what Congress is SUPPOSED to do!

You have been trying to scare people into thinking that the government is going to look at personal accounts, you haven't addressed the reality that the government isn't really interested in what most people do. You want to scare people and make it look like the POTUS is doing this and somehow Obama is going to be sitting at his laptop checking out your account activities.

It's complete scare mongering, it's crap, it has nothing to do with the realities of the law that was passed.

Yes I will diss your source, because your source is right wing propaganda.






[edit on 7/16/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

Fannie and Freddie being government sponsored agencies have absolutely zero protections from government prying eyes, therefore, they didn't need to be listed, as the government can look at absolutely everything Fannie and Freddie does. They aren't exempt at all the government can look at all their records at any time because the government gives them the majority of their budget.

I'm not surprised that you would say such a thing. Since the govt. take hold of the failing Fannie and Freddie there have been no "stress tests" or audits just blank checks to the tune of nearly $170 billion of tax payer dollars.

Earlier this year an amendment to start weening Fannie and Freddie from the government tit failed, mostly along party lines. The amendment would have mandated an end to government support of the failed government supported parasite within two years. That would have easily made them accountable under this new legislation.

However, it has become very apparent that Democrats, like you, don’t want to disconnect Fannie and Freddie from government control, or even plan for it down the road. They want to have Fannie and Fredie at the ready for their next big manipulation of the markets to further advance a social agenda. Hence the omission of these two twins of chaos from Dodd-Frank.

I have yet to find anywhere in the final bill where I see even a notion of rolling back the endless federal incentives and mandates to extend credit, particularly mortgages, to those who cannot afford to pay their loans back. Banks will still be required under this legislation to meet government-imposed lending quotas to those not qualified. The same circumstances that led to the meltdown in the first place.


[edit on 16-7-2010 by jibeho]