Why is JP Morgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon in front of congress, but not Obama?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first guy is the worst. I mean one of the biggest jack asses EVER. And from Wikipedia: He was a senior economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign from the summer of 2007 until July 18, 2008.
July 2008! this guy could've been part of the McCain Administration.
now, go ahead and pretend that these people don't exist.. blame it on bill clinton, and his cronies. (who are partially responsible)
The bigger point is that even Bill Clinton was following the GOP on economic issues because they were popular. "The great moderation." The whole country was buying what they were selling for a very long time, and right now they are not proposing we reform that but revive it.
Quote:
Also consider that Dodd-Frank hasn't done anything to stop MF Global and PFG Best from swindling clients.
Because the Republicans prevented most of dodd-frank from being enacted. How much have I heard on conservative talk radio about "the regulations that are killing our banks DERP DERP" ???
If it were up to Republicans banks would run the planet. (more than they already do, i mean.)
Quote:
Whatever the government regulations, someone will figure out a way around them. I'm wasting my breath since you probably blame republicans for EVERYTHING anyway.
just the things they're responsible for. i was once a young republican; you ever hear about the zeal of the converted?
The first guy is the worst. I mean one of the biggest jack asses EVER. And from Wikipedia: He was a senior economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign from the summer of 2007 until July 18, 2008.
July 2008! this guy could've been part of the McCain Administration.
now, go ahead and pretend that these people don't exist.. blame it on bill clinton, and his cronies. (who are partially responsible)
The bigger point is that even Bill Clinton was following the GOP on economic issues because they were popular. "The great moderation." The whole country was buying what they were selling for a very long time, and right now they are not proposing we reform that but revive it.
Because the Republicans prevented most of dodd-frank from being enacted. How much have I heard on conservative talk radio about "the regulations that are killing our banks DERP DERP" ???
If it were up to Republicans banks would run the planet. (more than they already do, i mean.)
just the things they're responsible for. i was once a young republican; you ever hear about the zeal of the converted?
Quote:
Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.
On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.
Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"
WASHINGTON — It is testament to the star power of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin among many Democrats that as Barack Obama fills out his economic team, a virtual Rubin constellation is taking shape.
Exactly right. Obama has a staff that looks like the directory for Goldman Sachs, Citi and Chase. He said he'd pare down the lobbyists, then surrounded himself with more than any other President in history. Blame should be placed where blame is due, and if memory serves me correctly Bush wasn't the President for the last 4 years.
Quote:
le roi said:just the things they're responsible for. i was once a young republican; you ever hear about the zeal of the converted?
No self-respecting Republican or Democrat can honestly convert to the opposite party. I was a Reagan Republican, and now I'm an independent Libertarian. The republican party has been subverted by the same big-government mentality the dems love so much. Spending OPM is a disease that both sides suffer from.
To say you've been "converted" isn't quite correct, as you've only exchanged one set of lies for another, yet both roads lead to the same place; a bankrupt economy and class warfare.
JP Morgan Chase is a banking entity governed by the Federal Reserve System. The Volcker Rule is part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, which is scheduled to take effect on July 21, 2012. However, on April 19, 2012, the Federal Reserve, a quasi-legislative instrumentality of the federal government, issued guidelines clarifying when banking entities must bring their activities into full conformance with the rule (not later than July 21, 2012); which guidelines have the effect of law. The need for the rule is that financial derivative contracts pose an unreasonable risk of loss to insured deposits; and, because they are traded "over the counter" and carried "off balance sheet," do not conform with approved standards for accountability of banking transactions. The trading activities of JP Morgan Chase following the issuance of the federal guidelines did not meet the "good faith efforts" for compliance.
Uh no, our federal government (under Democrat POTUSs) put into place the housing policies and lending policies/legalisation of derivatives trading, which brought about both the housing bubble and the mortgage derivative debacle. You see, the banks did what they were told to do via regulation in making those whom could not afford a home otherwise, homeowners. In fact, many were threatened to make those loans "or else".
That just is not true.
The fallacy in your reply is that the government 'forced' banks to make bad loans. The profit motive and perverse incentives made the financial institutions make bad loans. Under the age-old system, a bank would make prudent loans because they intended upon holding those loans for a long time and they wanted to assure that the borrower had the means to repay the loan.
Under their system, banks could make risky loans because they intended upon selling the loan five-minutes after signing to a financial institution that would bundle that loan with other loans and sell them as bond-like investments. Thus, the bank couldn't care whether the borrower was a good risk or bad one. Therefore, they made money on the volume of loans not the quality. That's one of the perverse incentives I spoke of and had nothing to do with the government but had everything to do with greed.
You make it sound like the government had to twist the bank's arms to make them lend to unworthy borrowers, which is not the case. The banks and mortgage companies were eager to do it and advertised for borrowers. We all heard the TV ads - "no credit check, no asset check, no problem." The government didn't run those ads, mortgage companies did.
Madison said in Federalist 51:
Quote:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
That's why we need regulations.
But look where this narrative is, that the government is the culprit. We can see that those who hold free-market capitalism ideology close to their bosom like a religion can't accept facts that question their faith, so they search for alternative theories, no matter how far-fetched, as an alternate explanation. Nevertheless, it's still a false narrative of reality. The fact is, it's entirely misdirected anger to blame government for the crisis which was caused by perverse Wall St. incentives that got traders and bankers willing to take on enormous leveraged risk.
Traditionally, conservatives differed from liberals has been over the size of the welfare state. Liberals think that the government should provide for the needy while conservatives believe that the unfortunate must fend for themselves.
What current conservatives are saying challenges the very role that government should play for the common good, like volcano monitoring. It inconceivable that anyone could argue that government shouldn't have a role in regulating banks -- but that's what you hear today. What's next? Government shouldn't build roads?
Perhaps it stems from presidents, like Ronald Reagan, who were hostile towards government and coined phrases like, "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help" and Pres. Bush, who wasn't serious about some of the essential functions of government and, therefore, made it incompetent.
which i blame on republicans, who masquaraded for 3 decades as the fiscally conservative party and should've known better.
So your argument is that the (R)'s should have known better than allow the (D)'s to expand housing to those who could not reasonably pay back the money back?
The fallacy in your reply is that the government 'forced' banks to make bad loans. The profit motive and perverse incentives made the financial institutions make bad loans. Under the age-old system, a bank would make prudent loans because they intended upon holding those loans for a long time and they wanted to assure that the borrower had the means to repay the loan.
Sure, they were not forced. They were allowed to and they were happy to with the way commissions were set up knowing that the government was going to take them over when they went bad.
The economic crash will happen again because Congress lacks the political will to stand up to the banking lobby. Dodd-Frank won't do what is necessary; and it will be back to business as usual - with the taxpayer picking up the tab.
So your argument is that the (R)'s should have known better than allow the (D)'s to expand housing to those who could not reasonably pay back the money back?
if you're illiterate
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
