Reply #21: And what?

[MadHound]

Do you wish to continue having commercial and investment banking under the same roof? The hundreds of banks that have closed, the millions of taxpayer dollars spent by the FDIC don't mean nothing to you.

The repeal of Glass Steagall was the opened floodgate that allowed this insanity to invest our financial sector and began this economic collapse that we are in.

Does it not make sense to close this door in order to provide real regulation and control of the financial sector?

The current status of Goldman Sachs simply doesn't matter, as they can, at any time, change that status, or even proceed with investment activities. All that happens is that they will be regulated by the Fed rather than the SEC. Ooo, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

As far as the current bill in Congress, it is weak, fatally weak. It doesn't institute tougher capital requirements, and while it relegates derivatives to the clearinghouses and exchanges, it doesn't address the underlying faults in the derivatives market, namely that derivatives will continue to make the markets more akin to gambling casinos rather than investment tools.

We have, at this point, a golden opportunity to be some real teeth into financial reform. Instead, as Obama once again vainly seeks for bipartisanship, the bill is being watered down and weakened. What this does is simply a slap on the wrist, and in five years, ten years, we'll have another bubble bust that will send our economy into a tailspin.

Sorry, but that is horribly irresponsible of the Democrats in Congress and Obama in the WH.

But then again, what else can we expect from a president whose top ten donors to his presidential campaign contains three financial institutions, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, and one of the top five industries that contributed to his campaign was the financial sector.