Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
President Obama Signs Financial Reform Into Law  
User currently offlinepropilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 598 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

Yewwww    no more gambling with mortgages or peoples money on Wall Street anymore. No more "too big too fail" and if the banks are in trouble, no more tax payer dollars for bailout, they will just have to sink down into the stinking sewer, check it folks, America has changed baby!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...-what-wall-street-reform-means-you

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting propilot83 (Thread starter):
they will just have to sink down into the stinking sewer

Well, actually it's not even that. It's just that they won't be using tax-payer money for bail-outs. (If I understand Correctly)

and Thank God! The kind-of reform is overdue.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 1):
Well, actually it's not even that. It's just that they won't be using tax-payer money for bail-outs. (If I understand Correctly)

Which is good - but AFAIK how they will "regulate" them is by forcing them to split or close parts of their business if they get "too big". Not good.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinepropilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 1):
Well, actually it's not even that. It's just that they won't be using tax-payer money for bail-outs. (If I understand Correctly)

and Thank God! The kind-of reform is overdue.

Yea I knew the banks would have to start saving their own money so next time during a recession, they cant use tax payer dollars for their bailout, they have to use their own savings, and if they dont have their own savings, then they will sink into the sewer and let them fail. Thats what I meant, I know I had to be more clear on that. Yea I am glad that this kind of reform made its way through too thank God! We cant let things just run around anymore and let them do whatever they like. The days of the Bush Administration and old garbage is over! I love President Obama, he is my man.


User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 3):
I love President Obama, he is my man.

Yeah, I don't know, I do like him and support what he's doing, but there are other politicians I like better. My biggest problem with him is how much he tried compromised with the republicans at the beginning of his term (on healthcare reform specifically), despite the fact that it was obvious the Republicans would vote no, no mater what. I'm glad that the President and Democrats in congress refused to "compromise" on this important bill.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 2):
Which is good - but AFAIK how they will "regulate" them is by forcing them to split or close parts of their business if they get "too big". Not good.

At first thought, I agree that it sounds bad, but thinking about it more I don't see how that is bad. Smaller, more local banks, are more likely to be active in helping the communites they are based in and are more likely to obey law and be ethical. In addition, even if a local bank fails, its affect on the economy will be much less than if it were a big multi-national bank, like the large ones of today.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 4):
At first thought, I agree that it sounds bad, but thinking about it more I don't see how that is bad. Smaller, more local banks, are more likely to be active in helping the communites they are based in and are more likely to obey law and be ethical. In addition, even if a local bank fails, its affect on the economy will be much less than if it were a big multi-national bank, like the large ones of today.

So go join a credit union.

I like banking with one bank, flying to the other end of the country, and seeing the same bank there and being able to use them. Maybe its just me though...

That said, I think the "size" of the bank is more related to what areas of business they are in, not how far geographically spread they are.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2032 times:

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 3):
they cant use tax payer dollars for their bailout,

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same party that passed this legislation the same one that actually bailed out the banks with tax payer money? If so... wtf?!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19608 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

A concern that i have is that the financial system is something that nobody really understands. It might be man-made, but we don't really know how it works.

Banks deal with money and the financial profession tends to attract people who are attracted to money. No shocker there.

So it won't shock me if the banks will find loopholes and other ways to get around this reform. And then, there's always that pesky law of 'unintended consequences."


User currently offlineBAKJet From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same party that passed this legislation the same one that actually bailed out the banks with tax payer money? If so... wtf?!

Well, kind-of. The bank bailout bill was passed under President Bush ( who, as we all know, was a republican) and received support from Democrats and Republicans, so it wasn't really passed by one party alone. In addition, I think the idea was that the bailout was a one-time-only emergency action to make sure the economy did not completely collapse, and this reform is the long-term solution.


User currently offlinepropilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same party that passed this legislation the same one that actually bailed out the banks with tax payer money? If so... wtf?!

We had no choice but to use tax payer dollars on the first bailout by Bush known as TARP I and the second bailout by Obama as TARP II. Now after this reform, no more tax payer dollars, if the banks screw up and they dont have reserve savings, then we are just going to let them sink without inflicting anymore pain to main street and the economy. We cant afford this kind of stupidity again, its a shame!


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 9):
then we are just going to let them sink without inflicting anymore pain to main street and the economy. We cant afford this kind of stupidity again, its a shame!

Well what if the financial situation gets as bad as it did before TARP I & TARP II. You'd be opposed to it in the future, but why not before? I'm not following... (not attacking you either, I just don't get it)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

Quoting propilot83 (Thread starter):
no more gambling with mortgages or peoples money on Wall Street anymore.

Don't be too sure. There are all sorts of loopholes in the legislation that allow companies to continue to do business as usual.

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 3):
The days of the Bush Administration and old garbage is over! I love President Obama, he is my man.

Then you'll love it when, because of langauage in the legislation, you are no longer able to use your debit card for transactions below a certain amount. And you won't complain when your bank starts to impose fees on things that used to be done for free to make up for the loss. Already BOA and several other banks have done away with most free checking no matter what amount your balance is.

Quoting propilot83 (Reply 9):
We had no choice but to use tax payer dollars on the first bailout by Bush known as TARP I and the second bailout by Obama as TARP II.

Disagree. There are lots of smaller banks that didn't take a dime in TARP or TARP II money that could have easily bought up the remains of the larger banks that failed.

What is left out of this "reform" is any sort of restrictions on Fannie and Freddie, two of the biggest instagators of the problem to begin with. Fully half of this legislation has nothing to do with the what caused the meltdown, the actual meltdown, or the arftermath.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

I am glad this reform passed. This law is needed to make sure that the taxpayer's money is used only for the good of the people. What good is it to bailout a company (that doesn't even benefit me) so its CEO can have a big, juicy bonus and raise? It's time the people's money (no, not the Yuan/Renminbi) is used for the people, not the corporations.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 2):
Which is good - but AFAIK how they will "regulate" them is by forcing them to split or close parts of their business if they get "too big". Not good.

Well, in a way, this is also good too. You know the phrase "the bigger they are, the harder they fall". Would you prefer a little hole or a crater when a bank collapses? This would make sure that it doesn't become a crater if the bank fails.

Quoting BAKJet (Reply 4):
My biggest problem with him is how much he tried compromised with the republicans at the beginning of his term (on healthcare reform specifically), despite the fact that it was obvious the Republicans would vote no, no mater what.

It's not really compromise if the only version they are willing to pass is theirs. They had their chance for nearly 10 years. Let the Democrats step up to the plate. I am really glad some Republican senators are willing to put aside their political party and vote in favor of the people. Seems there is still a glimmer of hope for the GOP.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Quoting propilot83 (Reply 3):
they cant use tax payer dollars for their bailout,

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the same party that passed this legislation the same one that actually bailed out the banks with tax payer money?

Well, you are right...up to a point. See, who asked for the first bailout was Bush (Republican), so the blame does not lie solely with the Democrats. The first bailout I kind of approved. In all honesty, had those companies failed, we would probably be looking at a different US.

What I don't get is why do we wait until something happens and then approve things to regulate it? Take 9/11 for instance. It took a terrorist attack to step up security in airports and screening of all passengers. With all the bombs and all terrorist activities that happened years before that, why did it take four planes, two towers, part of a building, and over 3,000 lives before authorities came to their senses?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 12):
Well, you are right...up to a point. See, who asked for the first bailout was Bush (Republican), so the blame does not lie solely with the Democrats. The first bailout I kind of approved. In all honesty, had those companies failed, we would probably be looking at a different US.

Not really blaming anyone, in fact, I wish whichever party is in office does what's right regardless of what the other party did. I was aware Bush started the first bail out. My question is what would happen if (heaven forbid) we get back to the level we were at or worse? Now tax payer money cannot be used? I suppose the other parts of this reform is to prevent it from getting there?

Things that make you go "Hmmm...."



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 12):
What I don't get is why do we wait until something happens and then approve things to regulate it? Take 9/11 for instance. It took a terrorist attack to step up security in airports and screening of all passengers. With all the bombs and all terrorist activities that happened years before that, why did it take four planes, two towers, part of a building, and over 3,000 lives before authorities came to their senses?

Because of Special Interests, Lobbyists, nothing gets done in a speedy fashion, first the money has to flow into the pockets of the congress by Special Interests, then the partying begins, the deals are made, the money is spent on free vacations, free airfare, you name it, sometimes even sex. It took dam near a new Depression to get this possible bank reform through.  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinepropilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 598 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Fellows fellows, this legislation of Financial Reform wasnt going to be "perfect" anyway. Nothing will ever be perfect, Health Care Reform wasnt perfect when people wanted the "public option." Next time there is a recession, it sure wont be on this type of magnitude that we've seen before. A lot of the small banks did not ask for TARP money, in fact they will be the ones who support financial reform and they will be the ones that will be rescued, not AIG, BOA, Chase, or Freddie or Mac or whatever the hell they are called. The days of leniency and forgiveness is over in this country folks, at the end of the day, the "right" will happen and the evil will never take over.

User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1930 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
Well what if the financial situation gets as bad as it did before TARP I & TARP II. You'd be opposed to it in the future, but why not before? I'm not following... (not attacking you either, I just don't get it)

Theoretically, the provision in the bill that allows the feds to break up banks that grow too large will prevent the financial situation from deteriorating to the point that a bailout is necessary. You only need to bail out a company if it gets so big that its failure would threaten economic stability, so if you cap the size of the companies, you eliminate the need for bailouts.

Quoting dxing (Reply 11):
Already BOA and several other banks have done away with most free checking no matter what amount your balance is.

That's simply not true. I opened up a BOA account about a month ago, and the checking is free if you either open the account online or set up direct deposit into the account, in addition to the usual minimum balance option.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlinedxing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 16):
That's simply not true. I opened up a BOA account about a month ago, and the checking is free if you either open the account online or set up direct deposit into the account, in addition to the usual minimum balance option.

My mistake I should have said Wells Fargo.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/16/f...l-reform-could-hurt-consumers.html

4. New or higher fees for bank accounts. Banks will lose billions of dollars from this change in interchange fees and they will look for new ways to replace that revenue. It is possible the decrease in interchange fee revenue could mean higher fee payments for consumers with bank accounts. Wells Fargo ended free checking account on July 1, and Bank of America(BAC) is testing new fees to be added by the end of the year. Other banks may follow.

That being said, BOA won't be far behind.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Senate Passes Financial Reform posted Fri Jul 16 2010 00:27:36 by propilot83
President Obama ,Thank You posted Fri May 14 2010 09:57:18 by AGM100
Financial Reform Package - A Debate posted Mon Apr 26 2010 19:29:31 by Dreadnought
Financial Reform Bill - Have You Read It? posted Thu Apr 15 2010 23:54:23 by MoltenRock
Obama Proposes Overhaul In Education Law posted Sat Mar 13 2010 13:28:52 by Ken777
President Obama Burned In Effigy In Kabul posted Wed Dec 30 2009 10:52:28 by DXing
President Obama's Nobel Speach In Full posted Thu Dec 10 2009 09:09:18 by Mortyman
Obama Signs Matthew Shepard Act posted Thu Oct 29 2009 10:52:23 by DocLightning
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize posted Fri Oct 9 2009 02:39:16 by Airport
President Obama Wants To Increase US Debt To $13T posted Tue Sep 8 2009 09:53:25 by KC135TopBoom