Robert Reich: The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, A Molehill of Reform

[Better Believe It]

The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, A Molehill of Reform
By Robert Reich
July 16, 2010


Thursday the President pronounced that “because of this bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.”

As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investors — a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman’s share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd (“Goldman is doing God’s work”) Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.

The American people will continue to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of Wall Street’s biggest banks because the legislation does nothing to diminish the economic and political power of these giants. It does not cap their size. It does not resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial (normal) banking from investment (casino) banking. It does not even link the pay of their traders and top executives to long-term performance. In other words, it does nothing to change their basic structure. And for this reason, it gives them an implicit federal insurance policy against failure unavailable to smaller banks — thereby adding to their economic and political power in the future.

The bill contains hortatory language but is precariously weak in the details. The so-called Volcker Rule has been watered down and delayed. Blanche Lincoln’s important proposal that derivatives be traded in separate entities which aren’t subsidized by commercial deposits has been shrunk and compromised. Customized derivates can remain underground. The consumer protection agency has been lodged in the Fed, whose own consumer division failed miserably to protect consumers last time around.

On every important issue the legislation merely passes on to regulators decisions about how to oversee the big banks and treat them if they’re behaving badly. But if history proves one lesson it’s that regulators won’t and can’t. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have the knowledge. They are staffed by people in their 30s and 40s who are paid a small fraction of what the lawyers working for the banks are paid. Many want and expect better-paying jobs on Wall Street after they leave government, and so are shrink-wrapped in a basic conflict of interest. And the big banks’ lawyers and accountants can run circles around them by threatening protracted litigation.

Reliance on the discretion of regulators rather than structural changes in the banking system plays directly into the hands of the big banks and their executives and traders who contribute mightily to Democratic and Republican campaigns. The flow of money virtually guarantees that regulatory agencies won’t be adequately staffed to enforce the law, that penalties for violations won’t be overly onerous, and that all loopholes (what’s a “derivative”? what has to be listed on exchanges? exactly how much capital must be on hand for which transactions? How are the various forms of predatory lending to be defined?) will be easily stretched in future years. Wall Street lawyers will have a field day. The profit-for-nothing sector of the economy (law, accounting, finance) will continue to grow buoyantly.

Make no mistake: As long as there’s no fundamental change in the structure of Wall Street — as long as the big banks stay as big and are allowed to grow bigger, and have every incentive to invent new financial gimmicks with which to bet other peoples’ money — they will remain too big to fail, and too politically powerful to control.

Please read the full article at:

http://robertreich.org/post/818142564/the-new-finance-bill-a-mountain-of-legislative-paper

[Greyhound]

1. Waiting for the reply from the instant unreccer. n/t

:kick: & R

[NJmaverick]

6. Robert Reich is dead wrong- Unrec

[Greyhound]

40. How?

Every bit of experience in the last 40 years says he's dead on. Another revolving door regulatory agency with a veto for the regulated. Steal a billion and kill a couple dozen workers and walk away with a 10% penalty.

[paulk]

56. you really don't help yourself much

with posts like this one.

I'd be interested in knowing why you think Reich is "dead wrong".

[groovedaddy]

2. The fine paid by Goldman Sachs amounts to nothing more than a cost of doing business. What's

there to keep them from doing it again?

[MadHound]

3. But it's another victory for Obama,

That is what I hear on the news last night, not that this would control Wall Street, or help we the people, but that this was a victory for Obama. Much like HCR was a victory for Obama. The trouble is these victories seem to come more at the expense of the regular folks than at the expense of those who are actually committing the crimes.

[NJmaverick]

8. It's a victory for the American people, our economy will be significantly safer

as well consumers be protected from predatory corporate practices

[MadHound]

14. LOL! Thanks for the morning laugh.

If you honestly believe in your own crap, then I have some fine swampla, err, prime real estate to sell you.

Your faith and naivete are charming, but certainly not realistic. How much are you willing to bet that within ten years there's going to be another Wall St. mess that we have to clean up, a mess that could have been prevented if we had taken strong action now.

[NJmaverick]

16. Your argument failed to sway me

perhaps some facts might help

[MadHound]

17. Frankly I've given up trying to sway you,

Because you and I have gone round and round. You ignore facts that counter your various views, you ignore reality when it suits you, so I figure that there is no point in trying to sway you anymore. You are nothing more than simple comic relief to me anymore, but even that is fading as your responses and attitudes are sadly predictable.

Bye:hi:

[NJmaverick]

19. You are incorrect sir

I hope you will reconsider my suggestion to use facts

[MadHound]

21. What is incorrect about my statement?

That you don't listen to facts? Or that you are now nothing but comic relief to me?

I would love to see a thread where you have actually listened to or changed your mind because of facts, links, etc. that I've presented, but gee, there isn't one.

Which is why I now consider you comic relief.

Bye:hi:

[NJmaverick]

23. Everything was incorrect other than your claim to have given up

although this response makes even that statement questionable.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ooglymoogly]

70. Your posts here, are those of a witless child

with no more content than such fare as, nanner, nanner, nanner; Your mother wears army boots etc; And has no bearing on a discussion of facts in support of a search for, thanks to unbacked pronouncement posts like yours, a meant to be confusing truth; Heralding gobbledygook as fact, to keep any reality from becoming clear. Not unlike a religions zealot defending his religion, when asked how, what or why, answers with, I don't need no facts to back up my faith".

[Kermitt Gribble]

61. Where are your facts?

MadHound was simply agreeing with the article in the op. You state the article is wrong, but you provide no facts as to why you think the article is wrong. Standard debating practice would dictate that you be the one to post facts that contradict the article in the op.

[ooglymoogly]

69. Making the terminally blind see, would be quite

a feat. The soaring stocks of the banking industry should give the thinking mind pause to question.

[Joe Chi Minh]

78. Professor Reich's article not factual enough for you?

Why I do I have this overwhelming impression that, as Lloyd George said of Chamberlain's grasp of foreign policy, mutatis mutandis, you are looking at this financial-regulation Bill through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe?

[northernlights]

77. it won't tak 10 years, or even close to it

the cave-ins are happening faster and faster. Time really is closing in on us. Probably by 2012 will be the next one.

[mdmc]

33. how?

why?

My friends on Wall Street don't think this is reform at all - and they are all Obama voters.

It would not have passed if it really protected us from Wall Street - it couldn't..

What it is is this - not de-regulation..

[laughingliberal]

50. Yes. Football game approach to politics continues.

Doesn't matter what we win as long as we win.

sigh

[Knight Hawk]

68. Modus Operandi

Unfortunately it seems like the modus operandi of this administsation is to pass a bill with a name that would indicate major changes for the good of the average citizen,however once you get deep into the details of the bill it turns out to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing or almost nothing.Another trick used by our current dear leaders is to kick the reforms so far down the road that by the time the reforms are supposed to kick in the world will have been turned upside down ,probably more than once.

[Warpy]

4. One of the main problems I see

is that the nature of some of the reforms and the enforcement thereof was turfed to the regulators, themselves. While that might be good news in the very short term, it will be bad news the next time a GOP gets in.

The regulations are only as good as the agencies enforcing them, in other words.

Between the hissy fit Republicans and the do nothing Wall Street Dems, little was accomplished that will have an immediate effect.

However, it's something to build on if we can keep the Republicans out.

[Cant trust em]

13. I do agree that much of the success of this will be in implementation done by regulators, however...

If that were going to be our criticism, then we wouldn't put much faith in the EPA, OSHA, FDA or any other regulatory body. Just because in the future there will be a republican in charge of the EPA, doesn't mean that I think that the agency is worthless.

[Warpy]

20. We've just been through 8 years of lawlessness

with all regulatory agencies staffed with bible beaters and corporate hacks. I would like to have seen Congress do more of its job fleshing out the actual regulations.

We know what it's like when a total bastard of a GOP gets in, and they're all total bastards now.

I suppose if they had fleshed the whole thing out, the Wall Street Dems and the "turncoat" GOPs would never have voted for it.

[Cant trust em]

22. I also suspect that some of the argument about Congress dictating too much regulation...

is that once something is in law, it's totally inflexible. There probably needs to be some fluidity so that if something needs to be adjusted, then it doesn't have to go back to Congress to get changed.

[truedelphi]

64. It doesn't take Republicans to make agencies next to worthless

At the end of the Carter years, a young man at the EPA had researched the link between lead in gasoline and paint and the lowering of IQ in children across the nation.

EPA's response? Start the process of terminating this man's position.

Luckily for all of us, The MacArthur Foundation awarded the guy a genius award, and amidst all that hullabaloo, the guy kept his position, and lead was then banned from gasoline and from paint.

Now we see the EPA approving the dispersant used in the Gulf, and could industry ties have anything at all to do with that approval?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. "What the fuck does he know?!!!" in 4, 3, 2, .......... nt

[NJmaverick]

7. Just because he is wrong, does not mean he is lacking in knowledge

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

10. Oh sure, of course he is. nt

[ProSense]

9. "As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal "

What the hell does the penalty have to do with a bill that isn't even signed into law yet?

Guess he know more about what is good for consumers than Consumers Union

Reich sounds like he's chewing on bitter.

[NJmaverick]

15. Those are signs a poorly formed opinion

when you bring extraneous facts in, it's a sign one is bolstering a bad position.

[paulk]

57. it's not going to be signed into law?

I guess we (or Reich) can't speculate on a bill that "isn't signed into law yet", because it might not get signed by Obama.

I guess that's the gist of your argument.

----------

Look - I'm sure you understand the point Reich is making - that putting regulators in charge instead of changing the broken system is not going to change much - case in point the little love tap the SEC gave Goldman the other day...

Accusing Reich of being "bitter" is not much of an argument, btw.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

18. ???? I didn't write the article. Robert Reich wrote the article. You should read it.

Why do you always comment on articles you haven't read?

And if you have any criticisms of the article post them!

Otherwise, why do you even bother to post in this string unless you prefer to engage in personal attacks rather than serious debate and civil discussion.

So what do you disagree with in the article and why?

I'm listening.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

31. So did you read the article and do you have an opinion on it?

If so, I'd like to read it. I'm listening.

I didn't know you've been policing my threads. Have you also been monitoring other DU'ers threads and who has given you that responsibility?

In any case, your claim about my last one hundred threads is pure bull shit.

And if you continue to lie and engage in personal attacks against DU'ers you disagree with I'll have to put you on ignore.

This is not a trash talk board so show some respect for Democratic Underground and DU'ers.

OK?

[4lbs]

37. Itemized list.

1.) Yes, I've read it.

2.) Yes, I have an opinion on it. Will I post it here? No, because you haven't. You just like to post articles instead of your opinions. Why should I offer my opinion on a thread where you don't?

3.) This isn't a trash talk board? Could have fooled me with all the incessant whining about the Obama administration the past 6 months by the usual group of people.

4.) Go ahead and put me on ignore. I'll do just fine without you acknowledging me.

[Better Believe It]

39. "Go ahead and put me on ignore." As you wish.

[kenny blankenship]

34. You screwed up. You were SUPPOSED to say: "Barack Obama didn't write this shitty bill!!11!"

"He's not to blame for the shitty bills Congress passes!11!1"

Get the memos. READ the memos.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Reich addressed the issues of regulation vs restructuring earlier

http://robertreich.org/post/628324698/obamas-regulatory-brain

Obama’s Regulatory Brain
Monday, May 24, 2010

The only way to have a lasting effect on industries as large and intransigent as banking and health care is to alter their structure. That was the approach taken to finance by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and by Lyndon Johnson to health care (Medicare) in the 1960s.

So why has Obama consistently chosen regulation over restructuring? Because restructuring Wall Street or health care would surely elicit firestorms from these industries. Both are politically powerful, and Obama did not want to take them on directly.

A regulatory approach allows for more bargaining, not only in the legislative process but also, over time, in the rule-making process as legislation is put into effect. It’s always possible to placate an industry with a carefully-chosen loophole or vague legislative language that will allow the industry to continue to go on much as before.


And that’s precisely the problem.

[Spazito]

24. Hmmm, is this the same Robert Reich that served with the Clinton administration...

the administration that contributed to the DE-REGULATION of the financial industry, passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill which Clinton signed?

I am looking to see what Mr. Reich had to say at THAT time but haven't found, as yet, anything until well after Mr. Reich was no longer in a position where he could be held accountable for finding solutions as well as iterating the problem.

I guess hindsight IS twenty-twenty.

[Better Believe It]

35. Reich left the Clinton administration in 1996, 3 years before Clinton signed the de-regulation bill.

[Spazito]

36. So, can you point me to an article condemning the Clinton administration...

for the de-regulating of the finance industry, by Mr. Reich, while the Clinton administration was still in power? I have been having difficulty finding such an article but I am sure I am just missing it.

[Better Believe It]

38. So you don't know if Reich was critical of the Wall Street deregulation.

Since neither of us know the answer to that question I'd have to say Reich can neither be attacked or applauded on that matter.

[sabrina 1]

81. Reich, as has already been pointed out, was gone

when the Gramm/Blilely/Leach Act passed. That was a relief to the deregulators as Reich had been against deregulation.

A Remembrance of Things Passed

But the fix was in, as it were. Inside the Clinton administration, those who had been resisting the push for financial deregulation, such as Clinton’s first Labor Secretary Robert Reich and former Council of Economic Advisors chairman Joseph Stiglitz, were now gone. On July 1st the House passed its version, which had been sponsored by Republicans Jim Leach of Iowa and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. of Virginia.

The next day Lawrence Summers — now director of the National Economic Council in the Obama administration — became Secretary of the Treasury. Summers had replaced his mentor Robert Rubin, previously CEO of Goldman Sachs, who left Treasury to join the Board of Directors of Citigroup. Rubin, along with Summers and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, had been busy serving the deregulation ‘Kool-Aid’ for several years, under the guise that “modernization” would bring “innovation” and greater “competitiveness.” As recently as last month Rubin was still saying “virtually nobody” saw the financial meltdown coming.

Rubin is lying. He was personally warned by Brooksley Born, eg, and his reaction to her warnings was to became extremely angry and she was eventually driven from her position.

In the above link, you can see clips of Sen. Dorgan's warnings also, which Rubin has developed amnesia over also.

Reich, as the article states, had been against deregulation, but no longer had a role in influencing the WH.

Now that that is cleared up, I am sure those who have been blindly attacking Reich, using his position in the Clinton Administration will retract those false accusations.

Reich is and always was a reliable source on economic issues, and an honest one. It is disgusting to see him being trashed here with imaginary 'facts' for reasons of party loyalty, while Rubin's lies are not even mentioned.

[Octafish]

25. Rec'd, but nothing happened. What's the matter, chickens, can't stand the truth?

For those who can take it, more on the subject:

So Did Congress Actually Reform Wall Street?

Loopholes. The only thing needed to make a loophole work is a lawyer.

[Enthusiast]

29. +1 nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

60. +2 n/t

[Enthusiast]

28. K&R! Right on, Robert!

Funny how none of the recommendations are registering.

[QC]

30. Robert Reich never really loved him!

:cry:

[mdmc]

32. Another feather in Obama's cap / black eye for the GOP

not too much else..

[Wilms]

41. k&r n/t

[DCBob]

42. Is it better than doing nothing? ... because that is what you would have...

without the compromises made to get 60 votes to break the Republican/Feingold filibuster. Its easy to criticize when all you do is generate words for a living.

[Better Believe It]

44. What filibuster? The pretend "procedural filibuster" that Democrats allow Republicans to conduct?

If the Democratic leadership in the Senate wanted to stop the phantom Republican filibusters they would!

[DCBob]

45. Are you one of those filibuster conspiracists?

There is an incredible amount of time and effort wasted arguing this non-issue on this site. Get over it..

[Better Believe It]

47. The Democratic leadership in the Senate can stop the pretend phantom Republican filibusters.

They can but they won't unless progressives/liberals demand it.

Joe Biden, acting as President of the Senate, can rule that 51 Senate votes can end filibusters

If Democrats really want to run the Senate they can get a ruling from the Senate President that only a majority of votes is required to end debate on any legislative proposal and/or that Senate rules can be changed at anytime by a simple majority of Senators using the "Constitutional Option.

It's likely the Republicans will utilize the above option whenever they regain control of the Senate. Meanwhile it seems the Democrats would rather let the Republicans continue their obstruction of the Senate by not utilizing that and other options.

Senator Reid can end his "two track rule" and he has the power under Senate Rule 22 to force the Republicans to engage in a real Senate filibuster. That's an established hard fact.

That hardly makes critics of Senator Reid's surrender and capitulation strategy "filibuster conspiracists". We just think Democratic Senators should behave as if they won the 2008 election and control of the Senate!

I don't think that's too much to ask.

[DCBob]

48. It aint gonna happen.. Harry and the Dems looked into it, consulted with Senate Parlimentarian..

and they decided it was not within the rules. End of story.

[Better Believe It]

54. So he "looked into it" and his parlimentarian agreed with him!

And that's why Senate Democrats have challenged Reid to force Republicans to engage in real filibusters. I guess they just don't understand Senate rules unlike the "always happy to compromise with Republicans" Senator Reid. Sure.

Did Reid also "look into" his "two track" Senate debate rule to determine if he could withdraw HIS rule?

What lame excuses for inaction!

The President of the Senate can overrule both Reid and the Senate Parliamentarian on any Senate rule! And Senate rules can be changed at any time during a session by the Senate. Read the Constitution of the United States!

How bout looking into that Senator Reid?

Of course, Senator Reid can revisit this question and just as easily come out with a brand spanking new "interpretation" of Senate rules and the Constitution of the United States if he decides to fight Republican obstructionism.

He has been known to flip-flop.

[DCBob]

55. He's the Senate Parlimentarian.. he's been there for decades..

The Parliamentarian of the United States Senate is the official advisor to the United States Senate on the interpretation of Standing Rules of the United States Senate and parliamentary procedure.

As the Presiding Officer of the Senate may not be fully aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, staff from the Senate Parliamentarian's office sit on the Senate dais to advise the Presiding Officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from Senators. The role of the parliamentary staff is strictly advisory; the Presiding Officer is in no way required to follow their advice, though they almost always do so. The office also refers bills to the appropriate committees on behalf of the Senate's Presiding Officer. If facing the dais, the Parliamentarian is the second from the left.

The current parliamentarian is Alan Frumin, who succeeded Robert Dove, who was Parliamentarian in the mid-to-late 1990s. Frumin also preceded him in the late-1980s as Parliamentarian, insofar as they switched positions as the Parliamentarian and the second most senior parliamentarian due to changes in partisan control over the Senate. The first female assistant parliamentarian of the United States Senate was Gail M. Cowper in the early 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate

[Better Believe It]

62. As you correctly pointed out: "The role of the parliamentary staff is strictly advisory" and

"the Presiding Officer is in no way required to follow their advice,"

That's right.

Senator Reid is free to reject their "advice". And Senator Reid also has the power to replace the Republican appointed Senate Parliamentarian at any time and for any reason!

The current Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, was hired by Republicans when they were in the majority, but only after Republicans had fired a previous Parliamentarian for not ruling in their favor.

Robert Dove, was Frumin's predecessor as Senate parliamentarian. Dove was fired in 2001 (Frumin replaced him) after Republican senators, then in the majority, disputed several of his rulings. Dove was dismissed by the Majority Leader, Mississippi Republican Trent Lott.

Well, how much pressure do you think liberals/progressives will have to apply to encourage Senator Reid to flip-flop and decide to ignore the Republican parliamentarians advice, perhaps fire him and force Republicans to filibuster or threaten to use the Constitutional Option"?

I assume you oppose such pressure and believe that Senator Reid is doing everything in his power to fight Republican obstructionism short of actually fighting them!

CASE CLOSED!

[DCBob]

63. and they almost never go against his judgment ...

like never as far as I know since I have been following politics. Even the Repubs didn't. And the ruling on this issue would be a major ruling, not just a general procedural thing.. it would be a ruling that would have long term impact on how the Senate would function. It could get very ugly... like maybe food fights in the chamber! :)

Give it up dude.. its just not going to happen.

[Better Believe It]

67. Right. Especially a Republican Parliamentarian who Senator Reid might like a whole lots!

And when the Democratic appointed Senate Parliamentarian ruled against Republican wishes the Republicans not only rejected his "rulings", they fricken ran him out of the Senate, firing him!

What "new" ruling do you think needs to be made? The fact that the Senate can make its own rules is part of the Constitution. A Senate majority has the power to change Senate rules and the President of the Senate has the power to interpret Senate rules. And no ruling needs to be made on the Constitutional Option! It's a Senate option. Period.

It seems that political apologists for Senator Reid's weakness never run out of lame excuses, one after another.

CASE CLOSED

[laughingliberal]

51. Oh, please share with us all what compromise was made to get Feingold's vote?

Seems whenever a Senator is withholding his/her vote to get something better for the people, they are demonized. Withholding your vote to get more for WS and the banksters? How fast can we bend over for you?

[Better Believe It]

79. Bingo!

[Raineyb]

80. Exactly! Spot on! n/t

[northernlights]

76. it's worse than doing nothing

because it's another wasted opportunity.

[on point]

43. More "Reform in Name Only" - the reason the Whitehouse has lost support.

This, like health care and upcoming climate change legislation, has a fancy title and lots of marketing as reform, but in actuality it falls far short.

THIS is why real dems are not "excited" by the so called "accomplishments" of the Obama admin.

They are marketing vehicles for image improvement, not substantive, real change "we can believe in".

I think the breaking point came for me when the Whitehouse did everything it could to avoid discussing, considering, or supporting a public option, let alone single payer, because it had already sold out. A fact based review, instead of a hiding of the facts, would have shown this to be the way to save our health care. Instead it became more important to save our health insurance system. Corporations before people.

[truth2power]

46. Best response yet!! This comes closest to articulating the problems

I have with the Obama administration.

It's not that I hate Pres. Obama or that I want him to fail, heaven knows! But over and over it's the same thing - some accomplishment that's trumpeted as the best thing since sliced bread, that turns out to be, substantively, of little utility in solving the problem at hand.

[Better Believe It]

49. How does this compare with FDR's actions taken within a year of becoming President?

He certainly didn't diddle daddle around with puny watered down half measures.

Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Truth-in-Securities Act.

Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[laughingliberal]

52. +1000 nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

59. Excellent post!

Perfect summation of the crap that has been passed off as real reform, and why many of us here are not happy.

[branders seine]

53. this bill does a few small good 'putter-around-the-edges' things, but

does zero real reform.

All the causes of the Great Recession/New Depression are still fully operational.

[democracy1st]

58. K & R nothing but a wall st lovin admin

[truedelphi]

65. Indictments per violation of RICO statutes should be

Made against AIG and Goldman Sachs.

Of course, in the end, were that to be done, none other than Tim Geithner would be swinging in the breeze, as he was so instrumental in the Fall 2008 setup of Bailout monies for his buddies at AIG and Goldman.

[bertman]

66. Robert Reich's "problem" is that he's not good at three-dimensional chess. Rec

[ooglymoogly]

71. +1 nt

[IndianaGreen]

75. What people call multi-dimensional chess moves

is what I, a chess player, calls rationalizations for someone who is totally clueless as to how to play the game.

Checkers perhaps?

[depakid]

72. There were four major problems to solve and the legislation doesn't substantially tackle any of them

The legislation will not stop Wall Street speculation in derivatives, the financial system will still be dominated by a few "too big to fail" banks doing just that, the ratings agencies will still operate with inherent conflicts of interests, and CEO's and executives will still get exorbitant pay and bonus incentives to take high stakes, systemic risks.

Even the purported consumer protection agency has been placed under the auspices of the Fed, whose job it is to protect ad regulate banks not consumers- and some of biggest offenders in loan origination scams, e.g. the auto industry are exempt.

I'm sure some will use the argument that a quarter of a loaf is better that no loaf, but as we saw with the stimulus, if it doesn't get the job done- then Americans will still have to live with the consequences of failed policy.There were four problems to solve- and the legislation solved none of them- but instead engaged in a dog & pony show.

The legislation will not stop Wall Street speculation in derivatives, the financial system will still be dominated by a few "too big to fail" banks doing just that, the ratings agencies will still operate with inherent conflicts of interests, and CEO's and executives will still get exorbitant pay and bonus incentives to take high stakes, systemic risks.

Even the purported consumer protection agency has been placed under the auspices of the Fed, whose job it is to protect ad regulate banks not consumers- and some of biggest offenders in loan origination scams, e.g. the auto industry are exempt.

I'm sure some will use the argument that a quarter of a loaf is better that no loaf, but as we saw with the stimulus, if it doesn't get the job done- then Americans will still have to live with the consequences of failed policy.

The legislation will not stop Wall Street speculation in derivatives, the financial system will still be dominated by a few "too big to fail" banks doing just that, the ratings agencies will still operate with inherent conflicts of interests, and CEO's and executives will still get exorbitant pay and bonus incentives to take high stakes, systemic risks.

Even the purported consumer protection agency has been placed under the auspices of the Fed, whose job it is to protect ad regulate banks not consumers- and some of biggest offenders in loan origination scams, e.g. the auto industry are exempt.

I'm sure some will use the argument that a quarter of a loaf is better that no loaf, but as we saw with the stimulus, if it doesn't get the job done- then Americans will still have to live with the consequences of failed policy.

[ooglymoogly]

73. Robert Reich, as always cutting away the crap, dumb show and noise, meant to decieve...

and to grandstand upon...Right to the nut of the thing.

Not change, but more crony capitalism of the Orwellian kind, cloaked as change, to fool the gullible. The propaganda cover will now go into full swing to make sure the gen pop swallows it hole.

Is anyone surprised, the corporate media is heralding this as a big fat win for BO; Just like Obamacare; Whose largess, astronomical and unbridled costs and theft are charged off to the taxpayer; And the corporates are always...always the real beneficiaries in any BO "wins" on the financial front, where sacrosanct capitalism is the totem; Even if they must be supported by the taxpayer for their survival; Or that Goldman and healthcare insurance Stocks soared after the wall st. and healthcare insurance provider servicing scams were consummated?

Our government in sum is a whore and integral partner to a convoluted form of capitalism; Payed for by, and including an obscene, and whore determined tip; All paid for by the docile taxpayer, whose once abundant fleece is becoming visibly and painfully thin.

By these short sited policies, there is progressively less fleece to shear.

Obama is playing a dangerous game of three card Monty with folks far more adept at the game than he could ever hope to be; With our lives in the balance.

[IndianaGreen]

74. K&R

because Reich speaks the truth.

:kick:

[harun]

82. Reform in name only.