|
Title: Why the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 is Bad... Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 25, 2009, 11:08:17 AM Lots of folks not happy...consumer oriented folks that is...
Quote On Thursday December 10, 2009, in the dark of night in Washington D.C., the U.S. House of Representatives was overcome with amnesia. They acted as though the financial crisis that has gripped this nation for the past two and half years never happened. Why does Congress do everything in the middle of the night? When folks aren’t thinking clearly? Sleep deprived? Quote I don’t want the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) to have the power to gut California consumer protection laws. But that’s exactly what the amendments would do. The OCC could do it under the guise of the federal preemption doctrine. Preemption of state laws could occur via a letter or administrative ruling, and could apply, at the OCC's discretion, to multiple laws across multiple states, amounting to a blanket prohibition on consumer protection laws of a specific type. The healthcare bill is an example of government gone wrong, pass the bucks to the states, pretend the states have control. States would be required to set up the insurance exchange, using federal direction. Why not let states determine their healthcare future? If someone doesn’t like what the state does, they can move elsewhere. It’s a lot harder to find a new nation. In many countries, being an illegal alien is a criminal offense, even a felony. No other nations seems to give away free food, shelter, housing, and educations like the US. Quote Furthermore, courts would be required to give deference to these letters when ruling on preemption issues. Additionally, these amendments would diminish the ability of state attorneys general to compel national banks to produce records as part of an investigation. This effectively reverses the recent Cuomo v. Clearing House Assn., L. L. C. (No. 08-453) 510 F. 3d 105 Supreme Court decision in which the Court found that the OCC overreached in its determination that a law enforcement investigation by the New York Attorney General was preempted by federal law because the subject of the investigation was a national bank. To big to fail, control, or investigate? National pets of Congress? EPA and climate fraud? Quote Long before this crisis erupted, the State Legislature attempted to pass strong regulations (as early as 2001) to close the loophole on unmitigated subprime lending. At each step, national banks fought these proposals, and claimed that such actions would substantially interfere with their business. Additionally, their state-regulated colleagues claimed that if laws did not apply equally to both types of institutions this would place them at a competitive disadvantage. [/b] Proposed consumer protection laws in California that addressed mortgage lending required such novel approaches as requiring that a borrower actually had the ability to repay their loan, and that lenders and brokers should not be allowed to steer borrowers into higher priced mortgages when they otherwise could qualify for a prime rate loan. I think national, international, businesses need more eyes looking at the books. More folks to keep them honest. I think there were good reasons the founders DID NOT want a strong federal government. Power should reside with people who have to dig deep into their pockets and pay for bad business. I think there were good reasons the founders DID NOT want a strong federal government. Power should reside with people who have to dig deep into their pockets and pay for bad business. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7257 (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7257) Are fifty honest men and women better at keeping business in line than one political federal government? Title: Re: Why the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 is Bad... Post by: WhiskeyGirl on December 25, 2009, 11:16:26 AM This is an older article, but makes some good observations. It sounds like much of Obama 'reform' movement -
"New Derivatives Regulation Is Weaker Than Current, Resulting in Greater Destabilisation of Economy" (The global casino is open, just under a new name) Quote A leading credit default swap expert (Satyajit Das) says that the new credit default swap regulations not only won't help stabilize the economy, they might actually help to destabilize it. more here - http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15760.html (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15760.html) There are links to the 'managers amendment' http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr4173/1_frank_hr4173.pdf (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr4173/1_frank_hr4173.pdf) Global governance? Allowing foreign regulators and such control over US authorities? Business? All this global business, no jobs for Americans, just massive DEBT to continue funding the GLOBAL gambling casino. jmho |