Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama Did It For the Money by Robert Scheer [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)62. Well,
"If you made a point, it isnt obvious to me. Dodd-Frank is a joke that will masquerade as reform but will enable the game to continue, at our expense. "
...your comprehension is not my problem, and your comment reminds me of something: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2595882
This was a law that expanded the FDIC powers, created the CFPB and enacted the Volcker rule.
Public Citizen, a public interest nonprofit organization representing more than 250,000 members and supporters nationwide, hereby petitions the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the Council) to recognize that the Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America or the bank) poses a grave threat to the stability of the United States financial system and to mitigate that threat, as provided by section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act). 1 Pursuant to the authority in the Act, the Board and the Council should reform Bank of America into one or more institutions that are smaller, less interconnected, less complex, more manageable and, as a result, less systemically dangerous.
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Under section 121 of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Board determines that a financial institution poses a grave threat to U.S. financial stability, then the Board, with approval from the Council, shall mitigate that threat.2 The Act offers regulators the flexibility to take a range of actions, including limiting the institutions mergers and acquisitions, restricting or imposing conditions on its products or activities, or ordering it to divest assets or off-balance sheet items.
- more -
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Public-Citizen-Bank-of-America-Petition.pdf
Orderly Liquidation Fund
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
To the extent that the Act expanded the scope of financial firms that may be liquidated by the federal government, beyond the existing authorities of the FDIC and SIPC, there needed to be an additional source of funds, independent of the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, to be used in case of a non-bank or non-security financial company's liquidation. The Orderly Liquidation Fund is to be an FDIC-managed fund, to be used by the FDIC in the event of a covered financial company's liquidation[75] that is not covered by FDIC or SIPC.[76]
Initially, the Fund is to be capitalized over a period no shorter than five years, but no longer than ten; however, in the event the FDIC must make use of the Fund before it is fully capitalized, the Secretary of the Treasury and the FDIC are permitted to extend the period as determined necessary.[36] The method of capitalization is by collecting risk-based assessment fees on any "eligible financial company" which is defined as "[ ] any bank holding company with total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors." The severity of the assessment fees can be adjusted on an as-needed basis (depending on economic conditions and other similar factors) and the relative size and value of a firm is to play a role in determining the fees to be assessed.[36] The eligibility of a financial company to be subject to the fees is periodically reevaluated; or, in other words, a company that does not qualify for fees in the present, will be subject to the fees in the future if they cross the 50 billion line, or become subject to Federal Reserve scrutiny.[36]
To the extent that a covered financial company has a negative net worth and its liquidation creates an obligation to the FDIC as its liquidator, the FDIC shall charge one or more risk-based assessment such that the obligation will be paid off within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of the obligation.[77] The assessments will be charged to any bank holding company with consolidated assets greater than $50 billion and any nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve. Under certain conditions, the assessment may be extended to regulated banks and other financial institutions.[78] Assessments are imposed on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets and risk being assessed at a higher rate.[79]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act#Title_II_.E2.80.93_Orderly_Liquidation_Authority
Reed, Brown, Warren Demand an Up or Down Vote on CFPB Director
Senators say efforts to prevent a vote on CFPB Director imperils consumers and undermines our economy
WASHINGTON, DC In an effort to protect consumers and crack down on financial fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today called on Republicans to end unprecedented obstruction and allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordrays nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Reed, Brown, and Warren, who are members of the Banking Committee, said that confirming a CFPB director will help consumers and strengthen our financial marketplace.
Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to help ensure the financial products and services that Americans depend on every day including credit cards, mortgages, and loanswork better for the people who use them. But in an effort to limit the effectiveness of the consumer watchdog, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of the CFPBs director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Earlier this month, 43 Republican Senators sent a letter protesting the CFPBs independence and vowing to oppose any nominee to lead the consumer protection agency.
Every year, hard-working American families lose millions of dollars to deceptive financial practices like hidden fees and predatory lending. The CFPB is there to help keep families from getting scammed. They are shining a spotlight on predatory loan practices and products -- bringing them into the light, where they can be seen and stopped. We must not let opponents of Wall Street reform turn back the clock on consumer protection. Instead of preventing the CFPB from doing its job, opponents of the agency should take an up or down vote. A well-regulated marketplace is good for the economy. It improves consumer and business confidence and ensures fair competition, said Senator Reed.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stands up for average Americans, Senator Brown said. And yet, Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress have repeatedly refused to approve anyone to serve as the Director unless the agencys authority is watered down. The American people are fed up with the obstructionism in Washington. We need to protect this agency that protects American families.
Under the leadership of Director Cordray, the CFPB has been making a real difference for hard working families everywhere. After two years, it is time for the Senate to give Rich Cordray a vote--up or down--and remove the uncertainty that is costly to families, to community banks and credit unions, and to everyone in financial services. said Senator Warren. Political stalemates dont end in more government or less government, but in bad government - government that lacks the clarity and predictability that our businesses need to plan for the future, to serve their customers, and to create jobs.
Since the CFPB opened for business in 2011, it has helped hold financial institutions accountable for mistreating consumers and worked in coordination with our federal regulators to return roughly $425 million to consumers pockets. The agencys Consumer Response center has already heard from more than 100,000 consumers with their individual problems related to their credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and bank accounts.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339671
Now a group is pushing for implementation of the Volcker Rule.
Occupy the SEC Sues Fed, SEC, OCC, CFTC, FDIC, Treasury Due To Failure To Implement Volcker Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (OWS) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (OSEC), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, We dont make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule, were now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.
First, heres the link to Wednesdays story, directly from the OSEC blog: Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
by bobswern
Just a few days plus a year after approximately 100 supporters of the former Occupy Wall Street (OWS) working group, the now-autonomous Occupy the SEC (OSEC), peacefully marched on Wall Street carrying signs stating, We dont make demands so this is a suggestion: Enforce the Volcker Rule, were now learning via a concise and inspiring post by Naked Capitalism Publisher Yves Smith that Occupy the SEC, Frustrated With Regulatory Defiance of Volcker Rule Implementation Requirements, Sues Fed, SEC, CFTC, FDIC and Treasury.
First, heres the link to Wednesdays story, directly from the OSEC blog: Occupy the SEC Sues Federal Reserve, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC and U.S. Treasury Over Volcker Rule Delays.
Occupy the SEC (OSEC) has filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York against six federal agencies, over those agencies delay in promulgating a Final Rulemaking in connection with the Volcker Rule (Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010).- more -
Congress passed the Volcker Rule in July 2010 in order to re-orient deposit-taking banks towards safe, traditional activities (like offering checking accounts and loans to individuals and businesses), and away from the speculative proprietary trading that has imperiled deposited funds as well as the global economy at large in recent years. Simply put, the Volcker Rule seeks to limit the ability of banks to gamble with the average persons checking account, or with public money offered by the Federal Reserve.
Almost three years since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, these agencies have yet to finalize regulations implementing the Volcker Rule. Section 619(b)(2)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act set a mandatory deadline for the finalization of the Volcker regulations. That deadline passed over a year. Despite this fact, the federal agencies charged with finalizing the Rule have yet to do so. In fact, senior officials at the agencies have indicated that they do not intend to finalize the Volcker Rule anytime soon.
The longer the agencies delay in finalizing the Rule, the longer that banks can continue to gamble with depositors money and virtually interest-free loans from the Federal Reserves discount window. The financial crisis of 2008 has taught us that the global economy can no longer tolerate such unrestrained speculative activity. Consequently, OSEC has filed a lawsuit against the agencies, seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief in the form of a court order compelling them to finalize the Volcker Rule within a timeframe specified by the court
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190410/-Occupy-the-SEC-Sues-Fed-SEC-OCC-CFTC-FDIC-Treasury-Due-To-Failure-To-Implement-Volcker-Rule
Wall Street reform was a huge achievement, but while its implementation is being ignored by supporters, its opponents are doing everything in their power to delay it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Filthy lucre is right. She is a bankster bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of half a billion.
Octafish
May 2013
#58
We are neck deep in a class war. She is a general on the wrong side. I had HOPE that BO
rhett o rick
May 2013
#61
yeah, Palast has made a nice $$$living for himself with his whine vineyards.
graham4anything
May 2013
#77
Pritzkin made some nice profits from corruption in the sub prime morgage scandal. As if she
sabrina 1
May 2013
#86
You need to realize that some things posted on this board, and this has always been true except for
Skidmore
May 2013
#29
And some things posted here are facts. Such as this OP which many of us were aware of
sabrina 1
May 2013
#52
what's demoralizing and divisive is not postings on a chatboard, it's the 1% running the country
HiPointDem
May 2013
#70
Public funding of elections. Public funding of elections. Public funding of elections.
reformist2
May 2013
#9
Elsewhere, you admitted being a conservative. Are you here to disrupt liberal/progressive comments?
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#37
To the extent that I post it, it hightlights that he (like you) is what is called a "conservative".
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#43
Name-calling, conservative pretending to be a liberal/progressive Kolesar.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#48
Aside from that, does she pay the same taxes as everyone else and if not why not? And was she
sabrina 1
May 2013
#88
And if we got the friggin' Dalai Lama elected president it would mean nothing if we didn't get
okaawhatever
May 2013
#71
She has also supported GW Bush, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Joe Lieberman
Fumesucker
May 2013
#72
Two words, broken gov't, and we should have known when BushCo got a pass. nt
mother earth
May 2013
#78
ROBERT SHEER SUPPORTED RAND PAUL FOR SENATE IN KY. He is a 20% extremist.
graham4anything
May 2013
#79
Scheer also stood up to Bush in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and lost his job for it.
Octafish
May 2013
#85