We vote for these pricks and they do the bidding of their Wall Street masters.
119 Democrats plus 3 Republicans voted NO In 2010, Congress passed the “Dodd-Frank” law to clamp down on risky “derivatives trading” that led to the financial collapse of 2008. Dodd-Frank was weakened by banking lobbyists from the start and has been under attack by those lobbyists ever since. Now a new law written by Citigroup lobbyists exempts derivatives trading from regulation, and was passed this week by the House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support. It sounds bad… but don’t worry, it gets much, much worse: The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the new House bill were literally written by Citigroup lobbyists (Citigroup was one of the mega-banks that brought our economy to its knees in 2008 and received billions in taxpayer money.) The same report also revealed “two crucial paragraphs…were copied nearly word for word.” You can even view the original documents and see how Citigroup’s lobbyists redrafted the House Bill, striking out ideas they didn’t like and replacing them with ones they did. The bills are sponsored by Randy Hultgren (R – IL), and co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) and others. Himes is a former Goldman Sachs executive, and chief fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Maplight reports that the financial industry is the top source of campaign funding for 6 of the bills’ 8 cosponsors. Maplight’s data shows that members of the House received $22,425,740 million from interest groups that support the bill — that’s 5.8 times more than it received from interest groups opposed. “House aides, when asked why Democrats would vote for this proposal even though the Obama administration opposes it, offered a political explanation. Republicans have enough votes to pass it themselves, so vulnerable House Democrats might as well join them, and collect industry money for their campaigns.” — New York Times
thought I should point that out before you spoke for everyone. 
1. Can you tell us what Section 716 of Dodd Frank changed with respect to swap trading by the big banks?
2. Can you tell us the status of the regulations that explain how this section will be implemented? (hint- they have not been finished yet)
3. Do you have any idea what the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act actually does?
4. If you read the text of the bill, could you explain it to us?
I ‘m fairly confident that the answer to all four questions is “no.” You read the article and made the post based on the article. Fair enough- that is what we do here.
But the guy who wrote the article does not understand it either – the new law does not “exempt derivatives trading from regulation” – to the contrary, it moves commodity, energy and other kinds of swaps back to the big banks from the nonbanks created as a bastard child of Dodd Frank and retains the big banks’ eligibility for federal assistance from the Federal Reserve and FDIC.
The new law provides protection to consumers by lowering transaction costs and will help farmers and small businesses as well. Banks use swaps to hedge risk. That is not inherently bad, is it? Whether this law on balance is good or bad policy no one knows yet but experts ranging from Chairman Bernanke to Barney Frank all agree that Section 716 of Dodd Frank is bad legislation.
Well, we should still be angry because “Citigroup lobbyists” wrote much of the bill, right? Nope. The lobbyists are just as clueless as you are as to how Section 716 should be changed. So they hired experts from Goldman Sachs and elsewhere who understand the swaps market and the effect on the discount window and the Federal Reserve and FDIC of moving this business back into the big banks. The CBO estimates that any impact on the net cash flows of the Federal Reserve or the FDIC over the next 10 years would not be significant if this bill is passed.
Who else could write such a bill? Congresswoman Maxine Waters who opposes it? She can’t even balance her own checkbook.
So let’s not sound the “they are selling out to Wall Street” horn just yet
The Banks invented the Derivatives market to pretend there was so much wealth in the world that they needed new and innovative places to funnel that money for investment. The fact that the Banks created this ponzi with FED help by printing and bubble busting, doesn't mean they're dumbfounded by their own debauchery. They know full well it's all BS.
The derivatives market is an ideal way to get money from the peasants to the banks to the Oligarchs. It's in your face but opaque. The banks continue to funnel money in, it disappears, there's a paperless paper trail of nothings, and the banks plead for more money or they will destroy the economy. Rinse wash repeat!
It's a sick joke that any imbecile could deduce, but somehow the whole fucking world refuses to see the forest for the trees... I know why, they've all got their heads up their asses listening to the experts lie to them about the wonderous world view up the ass.
You failed to answer a single one of his questions. I am willing to bet that Mari is correct, well at least correct in the fact that you most likely don't have the slightest idea how derivatives actually work, and you are simply parroting "Deriatives are bad" because you heard someone else say so.
Feel free to prove me wrong by answering even a few of Mari's questions to prove you have even an inkling as to what you are talking about. Or you can just prove yourself to be as clueless as AF on matters like these.
.........trading these risky investments back and forth between themselves and other investors. What ticks me off is having U.S taxpayers bail out their asses when the risky financial instruments blow up in their faces as happened in 2008
My problem is when our inept government let them get too big to fail and using tax payer money to bail them out while you nor I as tax payer don’t have any say in it.
There needs to be national referendum telling all branches of the government that, they don’t have the right/power to use public money to bail out private businesses. This is Capitalism of convenience. Businesses want public money when they fuck things up (socialism) and don’t want any regulation whatsoever when they staling the public blind and ruining everyone’s life (capitalism).
Should not have it both ways, should they?
"I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply."
--Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild (1777-1836)
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs”. —(Thomas Jefferson, 1802)
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
(George Santayana) (1863 - 1952)
Any recent news on Kim Kardashian's latest engagement? I do so hope this one works for the poor darling.