Warren starts off talking about the ebil cabal of bankers plotting to control the economy. Then around 8:00 she bursts forth into the basic national socialist rant, we are going to write new rules to punish the ebil bankers to "protect" the People. What does this mean if not expanding the Federal government to create "people's banks" under the thumb of political appointee regulators?

Everything she said was right on and you know it. I still can't get over how the right just spews exactly what business would want them to. "Regulations are too hard" "Taxes are too high" "Consumers can look out for themselves" "Let big oil crap in my water because I want cheaper gas" It is mind boggling

So, now you admit that Warren's goal is Federal government expansion via regulation. Predictably you resort to the reactionary approach, anyone who doesn't favor suffocating regulation from political appointees in the central government must oppose any regulation of business.

In the interest of progress let's stick to the issue at hand, Warren's supposed dedication to "protecting" credit consumers. Do you favor having having unaccountable Federal government appointees "audit" your personal financial transactions as they see fit? That is what Dodd-Frank allows the consumer credit protection agency to do. Pray tell who's interest is being served by giving the Federal government the capability to snoop on these transactions?

Who said anything about suffocating regulation? Why are you against oversight?

Second verse same as the first. I am not against "oversight." But the ruse of Federal oversight in Dodd-Frank masks a fascistic takeover of the financial sector. You have studiously avoided commenting on how making credit more expensive and difficult to obtain and placing the banking industry under the control of an unaccountable junta "protects" the consumer. Why? Is it because in practice all Dodd-Frank does is mandate Federal political appointees "regulate" banking in the interest of the favored few and create an agency with the power to dictate individual credit decisions?

Perhaps a bit of historical perspective will be helpful. Progryssve icon FDR created a massive Federal regulatory program, the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), allegedly to protect the People against the depredations of the "economic royalists." In practice it created an web of big business cartels along with regulations so extensive it was literally a Federal crime to allow customers to select which chickens a butcher would use to fill their order. Of course consumer interests in lower prices and higher quality took the hindmost. Dodd-Frank will re-create the abuses of the NIRA in the banking and consumer credit sectors, once again the very consumers the Progryssves like Warren claim to protect will suffer.

You say Frank Dodd will do (fill in the blank). You guys don't want any regulkation and you don't want oversight. The right always drags it's feet in to anything that protects citizens. It's automatic. Let me ask you something straight up. Should Glass Steagell be put back in place?

Answer my questions and criticisms of Dodd-Frank, please. I have played the little diversion game with you before. The issue at hand never gets answered.

It's hard to answer something spun so much. If it costs more for oversight it would be cheaper then losing 13 trillion in equity. This is what I see.

1.the consolidation of regulatory agencies, elimination of the national thrift charter, and new oversight council to evaluate systemic risk;
2.comprehensive regulation of financial markets, including increased transparency of derivatives (bringing them onto exchanges);
3.consumer protection reforms including a new consumer protection agency and uniform standards for "plain vanilla" products as well as strengthened investor protection;
4.tools for financial crises, including a "resolution regime" complementing the existing Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) authority to allow for orderly winding down of bankrupt firms, and including a proposal that the Federal Reserve (the "Fed") receive authorization from the Treasury for extensions of credit in "unusual or exigent circumstances";
5.various measures aimed at increasing international standards and cooperation, including in this section were proposals related to improved accounting and tightened regulation of credit rating agencies

Sounds like a real power grab huh?

Dodd?Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh my a Federal takeover of the financial sector guarantees no more losses. After all the Federal government is a model of prudent financial management, they are only 14 trillion in the hole on the way to 16 trillion or more by the by the end of this fiscal year the third consecutive one without a budget.

What you see is a sanitized depiction of the "reform" carefully crafted by Wikipedia's Leftist editors.

The new regulatory council is made up of political appointees safely ensconced in the Federal Reserve without dependence on Congress for their budget. An independent group with the power to preemptively seize and liquidate any competitors who prove troublesome to their big bank paymasters.

Just exactly what does "comprehensive regulation of financial markets" mean? Don't we have an SEC to that without resorting to management by junta?

Like its banking analog this new agency is an unaccountable bureau of political appointees buried in the Fed. Do you like paying $5 per month to use your debit card? That is the vanguard of costly consumer protections dictated by these reforms. Next will be a raft of new fees to make credit card holders pay their "fair" share even if you pay off the balance every month. By the time they get done writing the massive new batch of regulations in the WH the Federal government will have virtual control of every credit transaction. Gee, we'd like to give you a loan but the Commissar of Credit says no.

Translation, more bank bailouts for favored institutions with Congressional oversight. But don't worry, customers get to pay the extra fees to fund the bailouts. Aint "protection" grand.

Good idea, let's have our intrepid band of unaccountable political appointees "regulate" the credit ratings agencies so they don't downgrade our national debt no matter how big it gets, problem solved.


Yep. It sure does. Glad we can agree.