Why the "Financial Regulations" bill is a failure for consumers.

[SammyJr]

I just laugh at any/all who supported this power grab by the Feds. We keep telling you over and over that it's about power and it's not actually to help regular people but you keep supporting this sort of liberal/socialist BS time after time. When are you people going to wake up?

Liberal/Socialist BS?

When will you guys ever learn? There is nothing liberal or socialist about this bill or the health care bill or just about anything the Democrats or Obama do. They, like the Republicans, serve their corporate masters. What you are witnessing is corporatism.

Until we are willing to untangle corporations from the state, our democracy is largely a sham. The middle class and the poor merely get to vote on the style of financial rape they are subjected to.

 

[SammyJr]

We need even more regulation, this is not enough.

Not more regulation, necessarily, just regulation that puts the benefits of the majority of Americans first. We're not going to get that as long as lobbyists write all the bills.

 

[JS80]

lollergovernment at work

 

[BoberFett]

And the person with an iota of common sense realizes, its why you have to keep up with the banks, as as they try new ways to gouge us all, well we can outlaw that too. And sooner or later, if we close one loophole after another, the banks will run out of ways to legally gouge the consumer.

You know, when you play whack-a-mole, the moles never stop popping back up.

 

[bamacre]

What you are witnessing is corporatism.

Yup. All in the name of protecting consumers.

Let's see, we give up economic liberty for economic safety, and we wonder why we have neither. It's just a damn mystery.

 

[bamacre]

If these Regs prevent the repeat of the meltdown we're now recovering from, then they are Good. Pretty much the end of the discussion. Hopefully the Market will take care of these Banks turning around and simply Charging Customers more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tiOMu_Bf8Q

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The sky if falling again? How many times can the sky fall in a year and a half?
And yet I still can't reach the clouds

 

[First]

Good, making the industry less profitable will hopefully contract its ridiculous growth and the brain drain we've seen go to that industry. And there's simply no way free checking is going away either, it doesn't cost banks so dearly to offer free checking under these new regulations that they can't keep that practice. The new regs make them less profitable but obviously but nowhere near the point where it actually affects whether they can operate in the black entirely. There are going to be banks that opt to offer free checking in hopes they'll make it up in volume by being uniquely positioned as "that" bargain bank. It's a far better development than the alternative of, well, nothing, lol.

 

[JSt0rm]

I have bank of america and I never go into the bank so now I get free checking august 6th? Sweet.

 

[lothar]

I have bank of america and I never go into the bank so now I get free checking august 6th? Sweet.

So you were actually paying for checking before?
But then again, it wouldn't surprise me someone like you was.

 

[SammyJr]

Yup. All in the name of protecting consumers.

Let's see, we give up economic liberty for economic safety, and we wonder why we have neither. It's just a damn mystery.

Complete economic liberty would be no different. The wealthy would still control the game. This is why a strong elected Government that answers only to the American people is essential. Of course, this is not going to happen.

 

[BoberFett]

Complete economic liberty would be no different. The wealthy would still control the game. This is why a strong elected Government that answers only to the American people is essential. Of course, this is not going to happen.

I think you're confused.

 

[dmcowen674]

You complain about the bailout and failure of oversight. You complain about how the taxpayers have to foot outrageous interest and bank practices. So they try to address the issues and you still complain. No bill is perfect and this one will have a slew of changes over the years like so many others. But sooner or later instead of bitching, moaning, and sitting around with your thumb up your ass, you gotta get up and try to do something. The only true failure is the failure to do anything. No one knows if this will be a failure or not until the facts and results are known, not conjecture or assumptions.

If it pisses CSG off and his kind it has to be a good thing and Dave approved :thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

Its a ridiculously argument in MHO to say, if we take away one ability of the banks to gouge the consumer, the banks will simply gouge us in another area.

Hmmm... ridiculous argument, but yet it's EXACTLY what's we're going to see happening. Perhaps it's not that ridiculous argument after all.

And the person with an iota of common sense realizes, its why you have to keep up with the banks, as as they try new ways to gouge us all, well we can outlaw that too. And sooner or later, if we close one loophole after another, the banks will run out of ways to legally gouge the consumer.

1) banks and any other business will always be faster to change and adapt than the government is. Further, the government has shown itself to be grossly incompetent, they couldn't "fix" the problem if given 1000 years.

2) If the world was static with no changes, then yes, eventually you could close all the "holes". As it is, the world is not static, so no matter what you do there will always be more ways to rip off customers. Just like there will always malware, no matter how many security holes you close.

The real answer is that people need to be smarter with their money and their decisions. Sadly, that isn't gonna happen.

Bankers simply can't be trusted, they must be regulated.

The regulators can be trusted even less.

 

[woodie1]

Since Chris and Barney got us into this mess it seems natural that they would be the ones to get us out of it. ...lol...

What fools we are being played for.

 

[sandorski]

Hmmm... ridiculous argument, but yet it's EXACTLY what's we're going to see happening. Perhaps it's not that ridiculous argument after all.



1) banks and any other business will always be faster to change and adapt than the government is. Further, the government has shown itself to be grossly incompetent, they couldn't "fix" the problem if given 1000 years.

2) If the world was static with no changes, then yes, eventually you could close all the "holes". As it is, the world is not static, so no matter what you do there will always be more ways to rip off customers. Just like there will always malware, no matter how many security holes you close.

The real answer is that people need to be smarter with their money and their decisions. Sadly, that isn't gonna happen.



The regulators can be trusted even less.

You say that with a straight face?

 

[JSt0rm]

So you were actually paying for checking before?
But then again, it wouldn't surprise me someone like you was.

someone like me? D: nooooooooo im lower class then lothar. what should i do :hmm:

Yes they charge me 5 bucks a month unless i keep $6000 in my checking. I don't keep $6000 in my checking. For my 5 bucks a month I get ebill anything I want and all my accounts tied together. shrug. I guess I'm either not as shrewd as lothar or I just dont give a fuck about 5 bucks a month. I wonder what it is...

 

[yllus]

Bank Of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs... All of these companies were direct or indirect recipients of a lot of free cash last year - because an enormous run on the market was bad for everyone's health, this was the best of a very few bad options.

So now we have legislation to stomp out many of the things that allowed these companies to accumulate the enormous losses that required government action. (Yes, there will always be something they can use to game the system, but a couple of fixes is better than nothing.) These recipients of all of our money whine about not being able to get in (as much) trouble anymore, and you're listening to them? Taking their threats seriously? Railing against socialism and government? You're on their side?

Christ, some of you are really stupid.

 

[bradley]

Why a bank-bashing populist Democrat opposed the Wall Street ‘reform’ bill
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opi...cle_06798d20-5afb-535a-baee-b1651ba6205b.html

I also don't think a lot of people understand the distinction between private investment banks and commercial banks and why a wall needs to be built between them. Hence, the creation of too big to fail banks is the very worst distortion of both capitalism and socialism. None of this is contained in the current financial reform. Except for a significantly watered down Volcker rule, I see a lot of fail. I actually am frightened for a lost generation of distracted (but well-intentioned) Americans not smart enough to see themselves being played by both sides.

 

[Zebo]

I guess thanks for posting. Our government has become more corrupt than those South American and South East Asia ones ever were. I really don't look forward to whats coming

 

[PrinceofWands]

One benefit of having nothing to do with banks, investment, financial industry: I can largely ignore all of this and continue business as usual.

 

[lothar]

One benefit of having nothing to do with banks, investment, financial industry: I can largely ignore all of this and continue business as usual.

Does your employer pay you in cash?

or do you go to one of these "check cashing" spots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKJKBCyPUY

 

[PrinceofWands]

Does your employer pay you in cash?

or do you go to one of these "check cashing" spots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAKJKBCyPUY

Neither...I either cash checks from the issuer, or transfer them 3rd party. I also support and campaign aggressively for check issuer reform...financial institutions should be required by federal law to honor their issued checks at no cost to the recipient. If they want to charge the account holders, that's fine. But once a check is issued it should be beyond any fee assessment.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can quite get my arms around these ideas. During the GWB years we dismantled all regulations on the banking and financial industry and the basic financial industry went on to post the largest financial losses in recorded human history.

Yet now that the Obama administration has returned some sanity into the banking industry, and many banks are now posting handsome profits, legislating that return to sanity into law is somehow going to cause banks to raise rates?????????????????

 

[bamacre]

The "better than nothing" crowd can't see these kinds of regulations help the big guys (the big banks we all hate) get bigger. And bigger and bigger. Why? Because those little guys, you know the ones people like Arianna Huffington told us to start doing business with instead of the "too big to fails," simply have a harder and harder time being able to cover the costs of these regulations. They are simply too small to absorb the costs. Did you ever wonder how these big firms got to be so big in the first place? Too big to fail is about to become way too big to fail. And when they go back to the taxpayers with their hands out saying "we fucked up again and we need another bailout," you suckers will find every fucking excuse in the world to give it to them, and people like me will be blasted for trying to say "no." Edit: Again.