GOP: "Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

[bethere]

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view
is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

- Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, Incoming GOP House Finance Panel Chair


DISCUSS.

[lmavcch3]

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Sad.

[green__n_gold76]

The mean evil bankers keeping the average man down. Please. Yawn.

This wasn't the "GOP" but a single representative. I have to believe that this quote was taken out of context and drilled into the ground.

Could it be an (accurate) observation of the way that things have been done in Washington by the Barney Franks and the Chris Dodds of the world in the past?

I love the way that the libs and their operatives buy up domain names and make sure that they are on the top of the google searches when they bring up issues such as this.

Totally irresponsible.

[topcat]

The mean evil bankers keeping the average man down. Please. Yawn.

This wasn't the "GOP" but a single representative. I have to believe that this quote was taken out of context and drilled into the ground.

Could it be an (accurate) observation of the way that things have been done in Washington by the Barney Franks and the Chris Dodds of the world in the past?

I love the way that the libs and their operatives buy up domain names and make sure that they are on the top of the google searches when they bring up issues such as this.

Totally irresponsible.

So, do you trust the bankers to do the right thing for the society in which they operate?

[green__n_gold76]

No.

[topcat]

Me either.

[elitesmithie]

Me either.

Do you trust the govt.?

[BGFalcons82]

I'm going to change one word and see if that changes anyone's thinking:

"In Washington, the view is that the people are to be regulated, and my view
is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the people."

[sportsnut2002]

I'm going to change one word and see if that changes anyone's thinking:

"In Washington, the view is that the people are to be regulated, and my view
is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the people."

Yeah see you changed the subject of statement changing the entire statement. So what does that have to do with what Bachus said?

[ClintonvilleBuck]

I'm going to change one word and see if that changes anyone's thinking:

"In Washington, the view is that the people are to be regulated, and my view
is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the people."

Using your analogy, do the people of the United State's welfare = International Banks interests

[bethere]

This wasn't the "GOP" but a single representative. I have to believe that this quote was taken out of context and drilled into the ground.



no, this is the GOP's incoming banking committee chair.

[bethere]

Do you trust the govt.?

I AM REPRESENTED IN THE GOVERNMENT.

do you believe in a representative democracy?

[bethere]

No.

then you should be deeply concerned that the new gop committee chair for banking thinks he is there to serve the banks rather than watch them.

[green__n_gold76]

I have a little trouble believing that is what he meant.

Did you and the other libs have an orgasm when you heard about this?

[bethere]

Yeah see you changed the subject of statement changing the entire statement. So what does that have to do with what Bachus said?


he views obfuscation and lying for his party as his job. job number 2 for him is following me around like a puppy even though i have him blocked.

a high quality post on your part, sir.

[bethere]

Using your analogy, do the people of the United State's welfare = International Banks interests

AN INTERESTING QUESTION!

i bet he never answers it.

[bethere]

I have a little trouble believing that is what he meant.

Did you and the other libs have an orgasm when you heard about this?

Bachus Has Taken More Than $1 Million from Wall Street. While in Congress, Bachus has taken over $1 million in contributions from Wall Street. Bachus has taken $410,508 from finance and credit companies and $686,116 from securities and investment companies while in Congress. [opensecrets.org, accessed 12/08/10]

Bachus Negotiated the Troubled Assets Relief Program. As the Ranking Member on House Financial Services, Bachus negotiated the TARP bailouts with Democrats “on behalf of House Republicans.” [Daily Caller, 12/08/10]

Bachus Supported Final Financial Bailout Bill. In 2008, Bachus voted for a bill that gave a historic rescue to the financial industry. The bill specifically allowed the Treasury Department to buy up to $700 billion in troubled assets, the largest government intervention in the financial market since the Great Depression. The measure was similar to a previous piece of legislation (HR 3997) but included significant restrictions on the Treasury program, including parceling out the money in installments, limiting executive compensation at participating firms and establishing a government insurance plan for asset-backed securities, paid for by financial institutions. [CQ Today, 10/03/08] [HR 1424, Vote #681, 10/03/08]

http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/big_bank_bachus_thinks_government_exists_to_serve_ the_banks/

[green__n_gold76]

And your point?

[bethere]

And your point?


he meant it. and now the banking industry and the US chamber of commerce has bought in whole the chair of the banking committee.

IT ISN'T FUNNY IN THE SLIGHTEST. IT'S FASCISM.


“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”-- Benito Mussolini, THE INVENTOR OF FASCISM.

[green__n_gold76]

If fascism comes to America, it will be called a defense against fascism.

The banking industry has owned congress-and now the President-for some time now. Follow the bread crumbs.

[bethere]

If fascism comes to America, it will be called a defense against fascism.

The banking industry has owned congress-and now the President-for some time now. Follow the bread crumbs.

it is already here, and they failed to drown our representative democracy in their first attempt to drag us across the floor of the bathroom.

ARE YOU GOING TO BE AWAKE AND VIGILANT FOR ROUND TWO, OR ARE YOU GOING TO ENABLE THEM?

and you were right. my party has had to fend off attacks that we are somehow both fascist AND socialist. those attacks all came from the GOP--totally fulfilling your prophesy.

and then there is Bush's nasty war against islamo-fasicsm--whatever the heck that could possibly be.


"If fascism comes to America, it will be called a defense against fascism."--YOUR prophesy.

[Domi]

Do you trust the govt.?

Nope, they rank right up there with banks, unions, insurance companies, etc. I'll stick with my credit union where I have a direct say in how things are going.

Until politicians are forced to stop taking money from PACs such as corporations and unions, they will not be honest to anyone but the donation trough no matter the party.

[fballnut]

So, do you trust the bankers to do the right thing for the society in which they operate?

Do you trust the government to do the right thing for the society in which they operate? Look at the millions of civilians that government has killed in this century alone. Can't say the same for any bank. At least in the private sector if a company isn't competitive it will go out of business. Ever hear of the government or even a department in the government going out of business? No one business or industry will ever have the power the government has. THAT should scare you.

[topcat]

Do you trust the government to do the right thing for the society in which they operate? Look at the millions of civilians that government has killed in this century alone. Can't say the same for any bank. At least in the private sector if a company isn't competitive it will go out of business. Ever hear of the government or even a department in the government going out of business? No one business or industry will ever have the power the government has. THAT should scare you.

Under our socio-economic system (free market democracy - you can not have an economic system without a governmental system, they go hand in hand.) we depend on private business to ensure the economic well being of our society. In essence, we depend on the fox to guard the henhouse. We need business to be profitable, but also to act in the best interest of society. Without that, the structure of our socio-economic system crumbles.

When you refer to the government killing millions of civilians, are you making that claim in the context of war? I can't really respond unless I know that.

What I can tell you about banks is that right now they are sitting on billions in cash that they could be circulating into the economy in the form of loans. Those loans would allow businesses to operate more freely, invest in product lines, tools, and machinery, and create jobs. Instead, banks are allowing the economy to stagnate while enriching themselves. Also, why did banks use bailout money, intended to be put into circulation as loans, to purchase other banks in predatory fashion?

Sometimes the government has to do what the private sector can't or won't. That's why the government can not go out of business. And you shouldn't want it to. The alternative would be chaos and anarchy.

[BGFalcons82]

What I can tell you about banks is that right now they are sitting on billions in cash that they could be circulating into the economy in the form of loans. Those loans would allow businesses to operate more freely, invest in product lines, tools, and machinery, and create jobs. Instead, banks are allowing the economy to stagnate while enriching themselves. Also, why did banks use bailout money, intended to be put into circulation as loans, to purchase other banks in predatory fashion?

Sometimes the government has to do what the private sector can't or won't. That's why the government can not go out of business. And you shouldn't want it to. The alternative would be chaos and anarchy.

I agree with your observations about government working in direct contact with private enterprise on an economic level.

Regarding what I copied from your post, isn't wanton disregard for people's ability to repay loans the main reason we are in the economic mess we are in? If government steps in and basically tells them, "here's some cash to keep you whole and make sure you don't default completely", then wouldn't it be prudent for banks to learn from their mistakes and sit on their reserves while they cut out their stupid loans to people who have no intention of ever repaying them? Why is anyone surprised at their actions?

Beat up banks all you want, but they will not get a second chance, especially if they repeat the mistakes of the past. Which is exactly what this administration would like them to do.

[BGFalcons82]

then you should be deeply concerned that the new gop committee chair for banking thinks he is there to serve the banks rather than watch them.

We should be terrified of bankers, eh?

I suppose we shouldn't be terrified of admitted communists, avowed Marxists, and dedicated loyalists to Mao Tse Tung acting as czars without oversight in the Obama administration, should we?

[BGFalcons82]

Using your analogy, do the people of the United State's welfare = International Banks interests

It wasn't so much an analogy as an attack on your cerebral cortex to see if the left's hatred of capitalism totally consumes them. For a few of you, it appears so. Washington is supposed to be the tail, not the dog, contrary to their current occupiers. But that's another thread.

You are worried about International bankers? Really? Does that mean you are terrified of foreign countries owning our debt? Does that mean you are for severely cutting spending in order to reduce our debt and our reliance on foreigners buying the USA? Does that mean you are against QE1 and QE2 as a way of selling our souls?

I'm pretty sure I know your answers, but maybe there's a teeny chance you'll surprise us.

BTW bethere...you are wrong again for about the hundredth time this month. Quite a streak you have there, Gibby.

[ClintonvilleBuck]

It wasn't so much an analogy as an attack on your cerebral cortex to see if the left's hatred of capitalism totally consumes them. For a few of you, it appears so. Washington is supposed to be the tail, not the dog, contrary to their current occupiers. But that's another thread.

You are worried about International bankers? Really? Does that mean you are terrified of foreign countries owning our debt? Does that mean you are for severely cutting spending in order to reduce our debt and our reliance on foreigners buying the USA? Does that mean you are against QE1 and QE2 as a way of selling our souls?

I'm pretty sure I know your answers, but maybe there's a teeny chance you'll surprise us.

BTW bethere...you are wrong again for about the hundredth time this month. Quite a streak you have there, Gibby.


You get worn out from all of the spinning? Get your GOP talking points out, deep debt, Red China, terrorists...

I'm worried about an unregulated industry with unimaginably deep pockets buying their way into carte blanch... an industry that has already exposed itself…

I work in the banking industry, I know how it works... if you think the bank gives a flying crap about the "common good", you're dreaming... it's the bottom line, it doesn't matter how you get there, just get there... it's cost/benefit analysis, if revenues exceed potential losses, go for it...

You're a fool if you think that the banking industry would be able to govern themselves...

[green__n_gold76]

The mortgage mess was caused by government regulation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be regulation, but bad regulations written by government officials who have been bought (such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are even more scary-and damaging-than no relguation.

Question. How did the banking industry benefit from making bad loans? If they didn't benefit, who did?

[ClintonvilleBuck]

The mortgage mess was caused by government regulation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be regulation, but bad regulations written by government officials who have been bought (such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are even more scary-and damaging-than no relguation.

Question. How did the banking industry benefit from making bad loans? If they didn't benefit, who did?

Who benefitted??? seriously, there's always a buyer and a seller of bundled assets, when one person makes money, someone has to lose it...

check out banking profits from 2002-2006... if you don't think that they were making money hand over fist, you weren't paying attention... we're just paying the piper for our greed...

[BGFalcons82]

I'm worried about an unregulated industry with unimaginably deep pockets buying their way into carte blanch... an industry that has already exposed itself…

I work in the banking industry, I know how it works... if you think the bank gives a flying crap about the "common good", you're dreaming... it's the bottom line, it doesn't matter how you get there, just get there... it's cost/benefit analysis, if revenues exceed potential losses, go for it...

You're a fool if you think that the banking industry would be able to govern themselves...

Unregulated, eh? Really? No banking laws exist, huh. I think when I refinanced last year, I had a stack of papers about 3/4" thick and a large majority of them were governmental forms/federal housing regulation compliance forms/HUD crap/and on and on. Were you snoozin when your band of Democratic All-Stars passed the massive ~2000 page financial and banking regulations bill this past year? How many more regulations/laws/rules do YOU need to make sure everybody acts the same, works the same, and gets the same outcomes as everybody?

Tell us, which industry is the only one that is not under some form of governmental regulation nor oversight? Hint....your FCC just took 'em down for the count yesterday.

When did I say banks give a flying crap about the common good? I know you find this disgusting and awful, but banks are out there in the marketplace competing against other banks in a desire to gain worthy customers so as to MAKE A PROFIT. I know...boo to anyone that wants to make a profit, but that used to be life in America....until the socialists took over. :D

[green__n_gold76]

Who benefitted??? seriously, there's always a buyer and a seller of bundled assets, when one person makes money, someone has to lose it...

check out banking profits from 2002-2006... if you don't think that they were making money hand over fist, you weren't paying attention... we're just paying the piper for our greed...

...because of policies enacted pre-2002-2006.

If I buy a house, the bank pays the seller and I pay back the bank over time, right? Who is holding the money? Who takes the loss if I default?

[ClintonvilleBuck]

Unregulated, eh? Really? No banking laws exist, huh. I think when I refinanced last year, I had a stack of papers about 3/4" thick and a large majority of them were governmental forms/federal housing regulation compliance forms/HUD crap/and on and on. Were you snoozin when your band of Democratic All-Stars passed the massive ~2000 page financial and banking regulations bill this past year? How many more regulations/laws/rules do YOU need to make sure everybody acts the same, works the same, and gets the same outcomes as everybody?

Tell us, which industry is the only one that is not under some form of governmental regulation nor oversight? Hint....your FCC just took 'em down for the count yesterday.

When did I say banks give a flying crap about the common good? I know you find this disgusting and awful, but banks are out there in the marketplace competing against other banks in a desire to gain worthy customers so as to MAKE A PROFIT. I know...boo to anyone that wants to make a profit, but that used to be life in America....until the socialists took over. :D

I don’t believe that I said that you did, but shouldn't your elected representative in Congress be looking out for you instead of the poor defenseless bank?

If you took a second look at that big stack of papers, you'll notice that a large portion can be attributed to the originator explaining the payment plan associated with the mortgage as well as all fees/points baked into your loan... do you know why this is required? it's because those profit seeking banks were originating negative amortized loans without explaining how the product worked... imagine that, a company whose sole purpose is to make a profit tried to make a quick buck without thoroughly explaining a product...

big bad government makes the bank document that it explained to the consumer what exactly their getting into... get big brother out of my life! if the consumer isn't smart enough to understand a negative amortized loan, than it serves them right, isn't that the GOP mantra?

[jhaz]

...because of policies enacted pre-2002-2006.

If I buy a house, the bank pays the seller and I pay back the bank over time, right? Who is holding the money? Who takes the loss if I default?

If banks had actually kept the mortgages and not bundled sold and speculated with these mortgages I think the crisis would have been much smaller. The reason for this is that 'bad mortgages' were not seen as bad at first because of credit default swaps. If banks were actually taking the hit a few years earlier this would have been stopped in late 2006 or early 2007.

I have stated before, the current recession started 30 to 40 years ago when living on credit started to become the norm.

[ClintonvilleBuck]

The mortgage mess was caused by government regulation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be regulation, but bad regulations written by government officials who have been bought (such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are even more scary-and damaging-than no relguation.

Question. How did the banking industry benefit from making bad loans? If they didn't benefit, who did?

The mortgage mess was also caused by broker originations... a large percentage of loans generated through this avenue were originated without the borrower providing any documentation of income/assets... that's right, Joe Schmo calls into a broker, says hey, I've got a $300K home, and I make $150K... did the broker have an independent appraisal of the asset performed, what, no? did the broker have the customer provide a series of paychecks over a segment of time, what, no?

What specific banking regulation caused this?

[green__n_gold76]

Repeal of Glass–Steagall??

[ClintonvilleBuck]

Wasn't Glass-Steagall a regulatory act that disallowed banks from being a repository & investment bank... i may be over simplifying it, but how does that impact no-doc loans?

[bethere]

The mortgage mess was caused by government regulation. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be regulation, but bad regulations written by government officials who have been bought (such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are even more scary-and damaging-than no relguation.

Question. How did the banking industry benefit from making bad loans? If they didn't benefit, who did?

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view
is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

- Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, Incoming GOP House Finance Panel Chair

[bethere]

Repeal of Glass–Steagall??

i am glad you asked. it was repealed by a law written by THREE REPUBLICANS: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

[bethere]

Wasn't Glass-Steagall a regulatory act that disallowed banks from being a repository & investment bank... i may be over simplifying it, but how does that impact no-doc loans?

IT DOESN'T. they just figured that without regulation or oversight that they didn't need docs.

keep in mind that if you were suing them that you'd get laughed out of court without documentation. they want to eliminate your right to sue them while keeping their right to sue you.

they call this tort reform. i call it total freaking arrogance.

they are special so they deserve special rules, or so they think.

[bethere]

I don’t believe that I said that you did, but shouldn't your elected representative in Congress be looking out for you instead of the poor defenseless bank?

If you took a second look at that big stack of papers, you'll notice that a large portion can be attributed to the originator explaining the payment plan associated with the mortgage as well as all fees/points baked into your loan... do you know why this is required? it's because those profit seeking banks were originating negative amortized loans without explaining how the product worked... imagine that, a company whose sole purpose is to make a profit tried to make a quick buck without thoroughly explaining a product...

big bad government makes the bank document that it explained to the consumer what exactly their getting into... get big brother out of my life! if the consumer isn't smart enough to understand a negative amortized loan, than it serves them right, isn't that the GOP mantra?

you are wasting your breath, your opponents are drunk on kool-aid.

[bethere]

If banks had actually kept the mortgages and not bundled sold and speculated with these mortgages I think the crisis would have been much smaller. The reason for this is that 'bad mortgages' were not seen as bad at first because of credit default swaps. If banks were actually taking the hit a few years earlier this would have been stopped in late 2006 or early 2007.

I have stated before, the current recession started 30 to 40 years ago when living on credit started to become the norm.

moody's rated the packages AAA! and this enabled them to leverage the properties 30-1--and they got to use free money because the overnight exchange rate has been parked at 1% for years, an ugly mix.

THAT caused the crisis. there was a big problem before, but the system almost crashed because of the gross leverage.

[bethere]

You're a fool if you think that the banking industry would be able to govern themselves...

yep.

[jhaz]

moody's rated the packages AAA! and this enabled them to leverage the properties 30-1--and they got to use free money because the overnight exchange rate has been parked at 1% for years, an ugly mix.

THAT caused the crisis. there was a big problem before, but the system almost crashed because of the gross leverage.

Yep

[o.a.b.]

Why was it necessary for government,under Obama,to re-invest tax monies back into private corporations ? He did it for re-employment.Employment provides tax dollars.Now,why was NAFTA passed ? Was it really to make America more competitive ? I've yet to see that side of it but it did ensure a more corporate government.I'm not against any business making handsome profits.Those profits should be re-invested back into the business and then the workers,not government,ill-fated trade agreements,buying mouth-pieces.It would be great if both major parties take a look at what DDE said--Beware of the industrial machine.He was talking about the Pentagon as well as IBM.The banks need to be spanked and spanked hard.They are the worst customer friendly business out there.If they turn a profit,they build another building.God forbid they pay taxes even though they triple their money on a standard 15 year loan.The same guy that borrows that money gets squat for interest on savings and IS expected to pay tax on it.When the gold-standard was dropped,interest income should have become non-taxable.This is why we've become a nation of debtors instead of savers.Banks want this scenerio.No savings---print more !!!