Senate reaches bipartisan agreement to axe banking regulations

[Padawanbater2]

"The agreement also proposes exempting banks with less than $10 billion in assets from the so-called Volcker Rule which bans banks from speculating in markets with their own capital - despised by lenders for its heavy compliance costs.

Bankers, who have been lobbying hard for congressional regulatory relief under the business-friendly administration of Republican President Donald Trump, cheered the deal as a positive signal for the industry.

“While this legislation could go much further, ABA still views this bipartisan bill as an important first step in right-sizing the rules for America’s banks,” Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association said in a statement.

...

Industry expectations on a final deal had been muted because Senate Republicans need eight Democrats to support their efforts in order to pass changes to the post-crisis rules. The Senate bill, which is more limited in scope than the House’s original proposal, has nine Democratic co-sponsors, meaning it is likely to pass into law.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo struck the deal with a group of moderate Democratic senators including Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester and Mark Warner, who took over the discussions with Crapo after the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sherrod Brown, walked away from the talks last week.

...

“I understand my colleagues’ interest in agreeing to this legislation, but disagree on the wisdom of rolling back so many of Dodd-Frank’s protections with almost no gains for working families,” Brown said in a statement."

Reuters

 

[vostok]

didn't they try this back in the day

that lead to a recession and booting thousands of loaners outta their homes..?

 

[ttystikk]

Gotta love them Democrats- bailing out banks and letting them slide on regulations...

I bet next they'll pass the largest defense budget in human history.

...oh yeah.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Gotta love them Democrats- bailing out banks and letting them slide on regulations...

I bet next they'll pass the largest defense budget in human history.

...oh yeah.

Tell me the specifics of this bill, in your own words before you start bitching and crying about it...

What's that? You only read the headline and jumped to conclusions that reaffirm your personal biases?

Whats fucking new?

 

[ttystikk]

Tell me the specifics of this bill, in your own words before you start bitching and crying about it...

What's that? You only read the headline and jumped to conclusions that reaffirm your personal biases?

Whats fucking new?

You'll lick their boots even while they grind you under their heel so it really doesn't matter, does it Stinkydigit?

 

[SneekyNinja]

You'll lick their boots even while they grind you under their heel so it really doesn't matter, does it Stinkydigit?

Nope, but I will read legislation before commenting on it.

You should try it, it called an informed opinion. Its far better than your current method of knowledge acquisition which is "look at this Youtube video".

 

[ttystikk]

Nope, but I will read legislation before commenting on it.

You should try it, it called an informed opinion. Its far better than your current method of knowledge acquisition which is "look at this Youtube video".

The Democrats helped the current defense budget and its increase by a wide margin.

Watering down or eliminating Dodd-Frank and its reporting requirements would definitely help banks, arguably at the expense of consumers and society.

See? That wasn't hard, even for you.

 

[SneekyNinja]

The Democrats helped the current defense budget and its increase by a wide margin.

Watering down or eliminating Dodd-Frank and its reporting requirements would definitely help banks, arguably at the expense of consumers and society.

See? That wasn't hard, even for you.

You don't think regulations need to be amended/updated over time?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You don't think regulations need to be amended/updated over time?

You're arguing in favor of relaxing the already weak, watered down regulations put in place to attempt to curb some of the causes that led to the last economic crash. The Democrats who voted for it are the most moderate Democrats in the Senate. Explain in your own words why this bipartisan agreement a good idea?

 

[SneekyNinja]

You're arguing in favor of relaxing the already weak, watered down regulations put in place to attempt to curb some of the causes that led to the last economic crash. The Democrats who voted for it are the most moderate Democrats in the Senate. Explain in your own words why this bipartisan agreement a good idea?

I haven't read it yet so will not comment.

That's all I'm saying and you retards are here judging it based on reading the headlines.

Your group are literally the definition of low information voters.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I haven't read it yet so will not comment.

That's all I'm saying and you retards are here judging it based on reading the headlines.

Your group are literally the definition of low information voters.

Why are you defending it if you haven't read it? Why even comment if you haven't read it?

You just want to post in opposition to whatever our side says regardless of the content

 

[Padawanbater2]

Those moderates you guys support are responsible for getting this through

 

[SneekyNinja]

Why are you defending it if you haven't read it? Why even comment if you haven't read it?

You just want to post in opposition to whatever our side says regardless of the content

Where did I defend it?

I simply asked a poster to give me a breakdown of the changes he's opposing in his own words (ie. Not some copy/paste job).

I also then asked does the poster in ignorance of the changes do they not agree regulations generally speaking need to be amended over time?

It's getting tiring having to explain things that should be blatantly obvious if you idiots would actually read what is written.

The changes might be shitty in which case I oppose them and the Democrats that voted for them can go fuck themselves.

The changes also might be common sense in which case Id wonder why more Democrats didn't support them.

But the overarching point I was making was not to base an opinion on headline or the opinion of someone else without actually getting the information from a primary source myself.

It's how I caught your Justice Democrats in their "unlimited Corporate funds" lie, I checked their filing with the FEC.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Where did I defend it?

I simply asked a poster to give me a breakdown of the changes he's opposing in his own words (ie. Not some copy/paste job).

I also then asked does the poster in ignorance of the changes do they not agree regulations generally speaking need to be amended over time?

The Democrats helped the current defense budget and its increase by a wide margin.

Watering down or eliminating Dodd-Frank and its reporting requirements would definitely help banks, arguably at the expense of consumers and society.

See? That wasn't hard, even for you.

Doesn't sound very ignorant to me

The changes might be shitty in which case I oppose them and the Democrats that voted for them can go fuck themselves.

The changes also might be common sense in which case Id wonder why more Democrats didn't support them.

Read it and post your reaction

But the overarching point I was making was not to base an opinion on headline or the opinion of someone else without actually getting the information from a primary source myself.

That's exactly what you just did..

It's how I caught your Justice Democrats in their "unlimited Corporate funds" lie, I checked their filing with the FEC.

It's getting tiring having to explain things that should be blatantly obvious if you idiots would actually read what is written.

 

[travisw]

Those moderates you guys support are responsible for getting this through

Can you not make a post without all the hyporbole?

Why did you feel the need to change the name of the article?

Senate reaches deal to cut number of systemically important banks

just not as exciting as

Senate reaches bipartisan agreement to axe banking regulations

The moderates we support? You're talking about 8 dems and 1 independent. I've never seen a word of support for any of them on the board. Can you point to any?

By the way, as you hopefully know, it hasn't gone through anything yet. As a banking and politics "expert" surely you can appreciate the senate is still buried in their dog shit tax bill. Has Mitch said when or if he's putting this thing up yet?

Where did you find a copy of the bill that you read? I can't find one. Does it make changes to the CFPB's structure of powers? How's my mortgage going to be impacted? Put up a link to the bill you read so everyone else can read it too.

The truth is people who know more than you have been arguing for quite a long time that credit unions and community banks have been unduly impacted by DF. Are they lying? Why do you think changing the sifi leverage ratio is so bad?

If you need some duct tape, you can use mine.

 

[Fogdog]

Those moderates you guys support are responsible for getting this through

Nope, DeFazio, my rep from Oregon voted Nay. No Democrats in the house voted for it.

Why do you feel you have to lie about this? Why are you such a sleaze? You just said in another thread you wanted everybody to straighten up and not act like a sleaze. Is it just because Bernie lost that you are such a sleaze? I think not.

 

[schuylaar]

Why are you defending it if you haven't read it? Why even comment if you haven't read it?

You just want to post in opposition to whatever our side says regardless of the content

he word vomits.

 

[Padawanbater2]

"Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo struck the deal with a group of moderate Democratic senators including Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester and Mark Warner, who took over the discussions with Crapo after the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sherrod Brown, walked away from the talks last week."

Nope, DeFazio, my rep from Oregon voted Nay. No Democrats in the house voted for it.

The moderates you support just reached a bipartisan agreement with Republicans to relax some of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations

This serves as a good example of how establishment politicians are pretty similar on economic issues

 

[Fogdog]

The moderates you support just reached a bipartisan agreement with Republicans to relax some of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations

This serves as a good example of how establishment politicians are pretty similar on economic issues

You've wrongly characterized people and issues before and so your word has no value. Specifics. Specifically, who? Specifically what?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Specifics. Specifically, who? Specifically what?

"The agreement also proposes exempting banks with less than $10 billion in assets from the so-called Volcker Rule which bans banks from speculating in markets with their own capital - despised by lenders for its heavy compliance costs.

Industry expectations on a final deal had been muted because Senate Republicans need eight Democrats to support their efforts in order to pass changes to the post-crisis rules. The Senate bill, which is more limited in scope than the House’s original proposal, has nine Democratic co-sponsors, meaning it is likely to pass into law.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo struck the deal with a group of moderate Democratic senators including Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester and Mark Warner, who took over the discussions with Crapo after the committee’s ranking Democrat, Sherrod Brown, walked away from the talks last week.