Alan Grayson: Financial reform bills don't do enough to prevent another collapse, don't do very much

[brentspeak]

No one should be under the illusion that this particular financial reform bill will perform its stated intention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/financial-reform-bills-do_n_584473.html

Before the Senate passed it's version of the financial reform bill, Dylan Ratigan questioned whether the legislation addressed the causes of the financial crisis.

On "The Dylan Ratigan Show" Thursday, Ratigan recapped the causes of the global financial collapse, and then asked Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Brad Miller (D-NC) if the bills would prevent Americans from another collapse.

Grayson weighed in, saying that the legislation doesn't go far enough:

Grayson: Well the answer to your question is there's not enough in the legislation. What the legislation does is simply not enough. What it does is it extends the existing authority to resolve banks, to wind up banks to other financial-type institutions like AIG. And the reason why they claimed that there was a need for a bailout in the first place is because they claim that the bank resolution authority did not extend to insurance companies like AIG. I never really bought that argument. But they're saying that this legislation will permit that. I think the problem goes far deeper than that. I think we have to get away from this idea that we react to crises like this and we have to try to prevent them. We're facing a crisis in our economy as deep as the crisis existed in the 1890's when the trusts were taking over the economy. And to respond to that, we passed the Sherman Antitrust Act and said there couldn't be a trust. I think we need to do exactly the same thing in this circumstance. 'Too big to fail' means too big to exist. We have to systematically dismantle the institutions that cause systemic risk to the economy and that for sure the Senate bill does not do.

[tridim]

1. Perfect, enemy, good.

Love ya Alan, keep fighting.

[rudy23]

2. Bad, enemy, good

Is this how the Obama administration is going to be? Pass half-hearted legislation, then tell us to sit down, shut up, and stop whining about how it isn't perfect? Because that sure seems to be the pattern. And corporate America is kicking our ass at this game. No, this legislation is not "good" enough, and it's not because I expect it to be perfect.

That's a strawman that should be retired.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Define perfect, define great, define good, define mediocre, define acceptable,

define unacceptable, define poor, define bad, define horrible, define shitty, and define deplorable.

Does the word perfect now mean "workable solution" or what does it mean? I had always thought more along the lines of "without flaw", "optimal", and "the point where no further improvement is possible".

Some folks' good seems to be anything not easily demonstrated to be worse than current conditions and sometimes even that seems to be really stretching.

Hell, I don't always even argue for what I think is "perfect" because good and serviceable are often such big lifts but I'll be damned if my target is going to be hopefully better than what we have...maybe...possibly...cross your fingers...might want to say a prayer.

To mock Grayson's position here as letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is pretty absurd.

The purpose of the legislation was to put rational rules in place to prevent another meltdown, at least stemming from a similar cause, and we have failed pretty bad because the bill fails to address any of the systemic problems that lead us to this pass.
That means Congress has failed in their responsibility to the American people on this and the President should demand legislation that has a chance to turn the tide for us but instead he and Geitner have been working to keep the bill from actually going to the roots of our economic threats.

I also believe that praising and supporting this bullshit is effectively cheering and actively working against the interest of the people of the United States of America.

We just cannot afford to "take it easy" on the big banks and we sure as hell can't afford to keep proping up a casino that allows all the capital to remain in so few hands. The casino KILLS investment. Speculation ain't going to produce jobs.

[Aramchek]

3. Brent, Enemy, Obama