Timbo said: "mountainlaurel.. There are two problems with your retort...One is it is completely false and two it came from the Washington Post (Otherwise known as "emergency toilet paper") Get out your Barney tapes and leave the commenting to us adults."
You’re wrong, Timbo. The information in the Washington Post article IS correct. I tracked the information provided in the article to a news site for the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the information provided by the Washington Post IS there. The newsletter identified both the positives and negatives of the Dodd Frank bill from the perspective of the Independent Community Bankers of America organization. It was published July 15, 2010. The ICBA newsletter basically has three sections and identifies Dodd-Frank actions that they consider to be “Victories; Helpful Exemptions; and Harmful and Disappointing Measures." The Washington Post article included some of the Dodd-Frank actions from each section that the ICBA had identified in the newsletter. If in doubt, check-out the link below.
Timbo said: "mountainlaurel...Do you even read the posts we make...I said they should punish the banks that do wrong but not the ones that don't..You are misquoting both Jack and I.
You liberals remind me of some mentally challenged kid who watches the same "Barney" tape over..and over...and over...Quit commenting on something you know nothing about. You look like a complete fool to those of us who do."
As I recall, your original complaint was about banking "regulations," Timbo.
TIMBO SAID “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”
MOUNTAIN LAUREL RESPONDED: “But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.
Harp3339 said: “I have doubts you would know a free market if it hit you in the buttock. I doubt anyone here is old enough to have seen a truly free market with some government regulations but no interference in the business via tax breaks, incentives and payola to get support and voters.
Well, good afternoon, Harp3339. Welcome back. Where have you been?
As to your accusation and your statement about a “truly free market,” I understand the difference between a “free market” and “crony capitalism:”
“Wall Street bankers, along with the rest of the players in the financial industry, like to think of themselves as swashbuckling capitalists. They battle cutthroat competition with one hand and oppressive government bureaucracy with the other. In reality, the financial industry is deeply dependent on the government. Far from the rugged, go-it-alone types they wish they were, they are more like well-dressed, coddled adolescents. And this is true in good times and bad.
The industry’s dependency takes five main forms:
• an explicit safety net provided by government deposit insurance;
• an implicit safety net provided by “too big to fail”;
• a special privilege of being the only untaxed casino;
• an open invitation to raid state and local governments for fees;
• a right to change contract terms after the fact.
These dependencies are entrenched, and, despite loud protests to the contrary, the removal of government from the financial sector is not really on the agenda. The issue up for debate is not the virtues of the free market versus government regulation. The industry wants government regulation, just not in a way that curtails its profits.
In thinking about regulation, then, we need a fuller appreciation of the industry’s dependency on government. This will not tell us what to do, but it should open the door to a debate about regulatory reform that takes up the real question: will regulation be structured in a way that advances the public interest or in a way that allows the financial sector to profit at society's expense?”
Jack Dennis said: ““Wicky-Laura: You're incorrigible.”
Timbo said: “mountainlaurel .......you are an idiot.”
Please, get real, guys. . . It’s the two of you that are arguing that its OK for big bankers, Wall Streeters, and the rest of the financial industry to gamble and take big risks with the taxpayers' money - talk about idiocy and incorrigibility.. . . Indeed, one would think the two of you would have learned a little something from the financial collapse of 2008. . . But I guess not.
Joneses said: "Please do not answer the question "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or etc."
Well, Joneses, like it or not, the Bush Tax cuts have been costly to this Nation. As of a few minutes ago, the tax cut costs to this Nation - for just the top 5% - was 1,094,596,500,074.
Timbo said: “Argue with someone else...your ignorant on this subject.“
Sure, sure, Timbo. But since you’re the one who posted the ridiculous statement about Dodd-Frank’s alleged “draconian rules” that have allegedly “made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral,“ I’d say you’re the one who needs a little education on banks and what is required for small business loans.
Timbo said: “I have been in business 20 years and understand how it used to be, versus now. Collateral has always required but it has increase.”
At least, you're finally admitting that banks have always required collateral.
As for your comment about "how it used to be versus now," I suggest you review a bit of U.S. history to get a bigger picture, Timbo. You could start with what cause of the Great Crash of 1929 – a time when banks were failing and engaging in a lot of market speculation - and why the Glass-Steagall law was established by Congress in the first place.
In doing so, I'm sure you will note that this Nation had almost fifty years of prosperity and great success under the Glass-Steagall Act – commercial banks were lending lots of money; investment banks were making their deals as usual; securities firms were selling lots of stocks and bonds; and insurance companies were selling lots of insurance.
The financial collapse of 2008 came about after Glass-Steagall was repealed. Clearly, it was a big mistake for Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. The new Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act are good steps toward recovery, but this recent $2.3 billion J.P Morgan loss is telling us loudly and clearly that the “Volcker Rule” must be tightened and enforced.
Timbo said: “I am not refering to some talking point you read on the, "Obama for President" web site or liberal newspaper. I am talking about the real world.
And in the real world, banks have always required collateral, Timbo. To suggest that the Dodd-Frank bill changed this requirement is a ludicrous statement.
Timbo said: “My banker has told me time and again that the new regulations have changed small banking. The requirements, rules, amount of collateral have all increased by the almighty government that they literally can't take any risk. He told me stories of people with 8 to 10 million in assets that couldn't get financing because of the "cash flow" requirements of these banking regulators.”
You’re statement doesn’t make much sense as it stands, Timbo. Small business loans are usually around one million dollars or less. To suggest an individual with 8 to 10 million dollars in assets can’t get a small business loan from "your banker" due to unreasonable “cash flow” requirements of the banking regulators sounds fishy to me. Maybe you should look for a new banker for your small business loan:
“Banking Grades is a proprietary online tool that grades every bank on its commitment to small business lending. Using public data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Banking Grades compares the amount of a bank’s deposits to the amount of loans that bank has made to small businesses.
These loans are $1,000,000 or less. . .
On Banking Grades, anyone can search for an FDIC-regulated bank by name, zip code, city and/or address. Banks that make the most loans to small businesses (proportionately to their deposits) receive an A. Conversely, the banks are not making small business loans, receive an F. There are thousands of banks in between. . .
Banking Grades gives an A grade to 2,693 banks in America. In order to receive an A grade, a bank needs to utilize 25 percent or more of its domestic deposits to make small business loans.”
Miraweb said: “Other 'banks' are playing their last two months in the markets (like JP Morgan Chase) to see how much of their own money they can lose. . .”
Just read an informative Bill Moyers’ interview on with Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Moyers asks some good questions:
INTRODUCTION: “Once again, doing God's work -- that is, betting huge sums of money with depositor funds knowing that you are too big to fail and can count on taxpayers riding to your rescue if your avarice threatens to take the country down -- has lost some of its luster. The jewels in Dimon's crown sparkle with a little less grandiosity than a few days ago, when he ridiculed Paul Volcker's ideas for keeping Wall Street honest as "infantile."
MOYERS: “Should Jamie Dimon resign?. . . Chase and other huge banks have been using their enormous wealth for years to, in effect, buy off our politicians and regulators. Chase just had to pay up almost three quarters of a billion dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone, that of bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. It's also paid out billions of dollars to settle other cases of perjury, forgery, fraud and sale of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place while Mr. Dimon was the CEO.“
JOHNSON: “. . . there should be an independent investigation into how JPMorgan operates both with regard to these losses and with regard to all of the problems that you just identified. This investigation should be conducted separate from the board of directors. Remember that the shareholders and the board of directors absolutely have an incentive to keep JPMorgan Chase as a too-big-to-fail bank. But because it is that kind of bank, its downside risk is taken by the Federal Reserve, by the taxpayer, by the broader economy and all citizens. . . “
MOYERS: Dimon is also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, as everyone knows is supposed to regulate JPMorgan. What in the world are bankers doing on the Fed board, regulating themselves?
JOHNSON: This is a terrible situation. . . It goes back to the origins, the political compromise at the very beginning of the Federal Reserve system about a hundred years ago. . . It's completely inappropriate to have such a big bank represented in this fashion. The New York Fed claims there's no impropriety, there's no wrong doing and he doesn't involve himself in supervision. . . Perhaps, but why does Mr. Dimon, a very busy man, take time out of his day to be on the board of the New York fed? He is getting something from this. It's a trade, just like everything else on Wall Street.
Happywithnewbulbs said: “Are you sure you don't want the free market stop signs? I'm really sure we won't have accidents! And if we do, I'm sure somebody will meet consumer demand for a solution. Like catapults to launch cars over intersections!”
Yes, I’m quite sure, HWNB. Without a doubt, there would be a toll charge at every stop sign. Things like catapults aren’t cheap. And, of course, there would be the costs for personnel. The launch workers would probably be paid minimum wage, but those “free market” executives will need to be indulged to support the extravagant lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.
Timbo said: “The draconian rules have made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral. They simply won't let small banks loan take any risk at al.”
Draconian rules? Please, lets get serious here, Timbo. Banks have always required some kind of collateral. The reason small businesses are having difficulty getting small business loans is due to the fact that collateral financing has taken such a huge hit. In the past, people used equity in their homes to obtain small business loans, but since the housing bubble burst many small business owners do not have the same level of equity in their homes any more.
Timbo said: “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”
But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.
Deregulation
Timbo said: "mountainlaurel.. There are two problems with your retort...One is it is completely false and two it came from the Washington Post (Otherwise known as "emergency toilet paper") Get out your Barney tapes and leave the commenting to us adults."
You’re wrong, Timbo. The information in the Washington Post article IS correct. I tracked the information provided in the article to a news site for the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the information provided by the Washington Post IS there. The newsletter identified both the positives and negatives of the Dodd Frank bill from the perspective of the Independent Community Bankers of America organization. It was published July 15, 2010. The ICBA newsletter basically has three sections and identifies Dodd-Frank actions that they consider to be “Victories; Helpful Exemptions; and Harmful and Disappointing Measures." The Washington Post article included some of the Dodd-Frank actions from each section that the ICBA had identified in the newsletter. If in doubt, check-out the link below.
http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/NSPDFs/Frank-DoddSummary071510.pdf
Deregulation
Timbo said: "mountainlaurel...Do you even read the posts we make...I said they should punish the banks that do wrong but not the ones that don't..You are misquoting both Jack and I. You liberals remind me of some mentally challenged kid who watches the same "Barney" tape over..and over...and over...Quit commenting on something you know nothing about. You look like a complete fool to those of us who do."
As I recall, your original complaint was about banking "regulations," Timbo.
TIMBO SAID “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”
MOUNTAIN LAUREL RESPONDED: “But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-candidates-say-dodd-frank-kills-small-banks-the-banks-beg-to-differ/2011/11/10/gIQAhgWJ9M_blog.html
Deregulation
Harp3339 said: “I have doubts you would know a free market if it hit you in the buttock. I doubt anyone here is old enough to have seen a truly free market with some government regulations but no interference in the business via tax breaks, incentives and payola to get support and voters.
Well, good afternoon, Harp3339. Welcome back. Where have you been?
As to your accusation and your statement about a “truly free market,” I understand the difference between a “free market” and “crony capitalism:”
“Wall Street bankers, along with the rest of the players in the financial industry, like to think of themselves as swashbuckling capitalists. They battle cutthroat competition with one hand and oppressive government bureaucracy with the other. In reality, the financial industry is deeply dependent on the government. Far from the rugged, go-it-alone types they wish they were, they are more like well-dressed, coddled adolescents. And this is true in good times and bad.
The industry’s dependency takes five main forms:
• an explicit safety net provided by government deposit insurance;
• an implicit safety net provided by “too big to fail”;
• a special privilege of being the only untaxed casino;
• an open invitation to raid state and local governments for fees;
• a right to change contract terms after the fact.
These dependencies are entrenched, and, despite loud protests to the contrary, the removal of government from the financial sector is not really on the agenda. The issue up for debate is not the virtues of the free market versus government regulation. The industry wants government regulation, just not in a way that curtails its profits.
In thinking about regulation, then, we need a fuller appreciation of the industry’s dependency on government. This will not tell us what to do, but it should open the door to a debate about regulatory reform that takes up the real question: will regulation be structured in a way that advances the public interest or in a way that allows the financial sector to profit at society's expense?”
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.1/baker.php
Deregulation
Jack Dennis said: ““Wicky-Laura: You're incorrigible.”
Timbo said: “mountainlaurel .......you are an idiot.”
Please, get real, guys. . . It’s the two of you that are arguing that its OK for big bankers, Wall Streeters, and the rest of the financial industry to gamble and take big risks with the taxpayers' money - talk about idiocy and incorrigibility.. . . Indeed, one would think the two of you would have learned a little something from the financial collapse of 2008. . . But I guess not.
Deregulation
Joneses said: "Please do not answer the question "he just changed his mind" or "the Republicans would not let him tax the wealthy" or "it was president Bush's fault" or etc."
Well, Joneses, like it or not, the Bush Tax cuts have been costly to this Nation. As of a few minutes ago, the tax cut costs to this Nation - for just the top 5% - was 1,094,596,500,074.
http://costoftaxcuts.com/
Deregulation
Timbo said: “Argue with someone else...your ignorant on this subject.“
Sure, sure, Timbo. But since you’re the one who posted the ridiculous statement about Dodd-Frank’s alleged “draconian rules” that have allegedly “made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral,“ I’d say you’re the one who needs a little education on banks and what is required for small business loans.
Timbo said: “I have been in business 20 years and understand how it used to be, versus now. Collateral has always required but it has increase.”
At least, you're finally admitting that banks have always required collateral.
As for your comment about "how it used to be versus now," I suggest you review a bit of U.S. history to get a bigger picture, Timbo. You could start with what cause of the Great Crash of 1929 – a time when banks were failing and engaging in a lot of market speculation - and why the Glass-Steagall law was established by Congress in the first place.
In doing so, I'm sure you will note that this Nation had almost fifty years of prosperity and great success under the Glass-Steagall Act – commercial banks were lending lots of money; investment banks were making their deals as usual; securities firms were selling lots of stocks and bonds; and insurance companies were selling lots of insurance.
The financial collapse of 2008 came about after Glass-Steagall was repealed. Clearly, it was a big mistake for Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. The new Dodd-Frank and Consumer Protection Act are good steps toward recovery, but this recent $2.3 billion J.P Morgan loss is telling us loudly and clearly that the “Volcker Rule” must be tightened and enforced.
Deregulation
Timbo said: “I am not refering to some talking point you read on the, "Obama for President" web site or liberal newspaper. I am talking about the real world.
And in the real world, banks have always required collateral, Timbo. To suggest that the Dodd-Frank bill changed this requirement is a ludicrous statement.
Timbo said: “My banker has told me time and again that the new regulations have changed small banking. The requirements, rules, amount of collateral have all increased by the almighty government that they literally can't take any risk. He told me stories of people with 8 to 10 million in assets that couldn't get financing because of the "cash flow" requirements of these banking regulators.”
You’re statement doesn’t make much sense as it stands, Timbo. Small business loans are usually around one million dollars or less. To suggest an individual with 8 to 10 million dollars in assets can’t get a small business loan from "your banker" due to unreasonable “cash flow” requirements of the banking regulators sounds fishy to me. Maybe you should look for a new banker for your small business loan:
“Banking Grades is a proprietary online tool that grades every bank on its commitment to small business lending. Using public data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Banking Grades compares the amount of a bank’s deposits to the amount of loans that bank has made to small businesses.
These loans are $1,000,000 or less. . .
On Banking Grades, anyone can search for an FDIC-regulated bank by name, zip code, city and/or address. Banks that make the most loans to small businesses (proportionately to their deposits) receive an A. Conversely, the banks are not making small business loans, receive an F. There are thousands of banks in between. . .
Banking Grades gives an A grade to 2,693 banks in America. In order to receive an A grade, a bank needs to utilize 25 percent or more of its domestic deposits to make small business loans.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Entrepreneurial
Deregulation
Miraweb said: “Other 'banks' are playing their last two months in the markets (like JP Morgan Chase) to see how much of their own money they can lose. . .”
Just read an informative Bill Moyers’ interview on with Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and now a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Moyers asks some good questions:
INTRODUCTION: “Once again, doing God's work -- that is, betting huge sums of money with depositor funds knowing that you are too big to fail and can count on taxpayers riding to your rescue if your avarice threatens to take the country down -- has lost some of its luster. The jewels in Dimon's crown sparkle with a little less grandiosity than a few days ago, when he ridiculed Paul Volcker's ideas for keeping Wall Street honest as "infantile."
MOYERS: “Should Jamie Dimon resign?. . . Chase and other huge banks have been using their enormous wealth for years to, in effect, buy off our politicians and regulators. Chase just had to pay up almost three quarters of a billion dollars in settlements and surrendered fees to settle one case alone, that of bribery and corruption in Jefferson County, Alabama. It's also paid out billions of dollars to settle other cases of perjury, forgery, fraud and sale of unregistered securities. And these charges were for actions that took place while Mr. Dimon was the CEO.“
JOHNSON: “. . . there should be an independent investigation into how JPMorgan operates both with regard to these losses and with regard to all of the problems that you just identified. This investigation should be conducted separate from the board of directors. Remember that the shareholders and the board of directors absolutely have an incentive to keep JPMorgan Chase as a too-big-to-fail bank. But because it is that kind of bank, its downside risk is taken by the Federal Reserve, by the taxpayer, by the broader economy and all citizens. . . “
MOYERS: Dimon is also on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which, as everyone knows is supposed to regulate JPMorgan. What in the world are bankers doing on the Fed board, regulating themselves?
JOHNSON: This is a terrible situation. . . It goes back to the origins, the political compromise at the very beginning of the Federal Reserve system about a hundred years ago. . . It's completely inappropriate to have such a big bank represented in this fashion. The New York Fed claims there's no impropriety, there's no wrong doing and he doesn't involve himself in supervision. . . Perhaps, but why does Mr. Dimon, a very busy man, take time out of his day to be on the board of the New York fed? He is getting something from this. It's a trade, just like everything else on Wall Street.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/whats-the-ultimate-price_b_1522397.html?ref=yahoo&ir=Yahoo
Deregulation
Happywithnewbulbs said: “Are you sure you don't want the free market stop signs? I'm really sure we won't have accidents! And if we do, I'm sure somebody will meet consumer demand for a solution. Like catapults to launch cars over intersections!”
Yes, I’m quite sure, HWNB. Without a doubt, there would be a toll charge at every stop sign. Things like catapults aren’t cheap. And, of course, there would be the costs for personnel. The launch workers would probably be paid minimum wage, but those “free market” executives will need to be indulged to support the extravagant lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed.
Deregulation
Timbo said: “The draconian rules have made it almost impossible for small business to get financing with or without collateral. They simply won't let small banks loan take any risk at al.”
Draconian rules? Please, lets get serious here, Timbo. Banks have always required some kind of collateral. The reason small businesses are having difficulty getting small business loans is due to the fact that collateral financing has taken such a huge hit. In the past, people used equity in their homes to obtain small business loans, but since the housing bubble burst many small business owners do not have the same level of equity in their homes any more.
Timbo said: “The problem is not with regulating banks, it is with regulating ALL banks. Even the ones that did not cause the problems.”
But smaller banks are explicitly exempted from most of the requirements in Dodd-Frank bill, Timbo. So exactly what are you talking about here? As I recall, the Independed Community Bankers of American president applauded the new law because it helped to “level the regulatory and competititive playing field for community banks." They were particulary pleased with the higher capital and liquity requirements for the bigger banks, the Volcker rule, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the new rules that force bigger banks to pay more in deposit insurance. I have read some small bank complaints about insider trading and executive compensation provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill, but this is about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gop-candidates-say-dodd-frank-kills-small-banks-the-banks-beg-to-differ/2011/11/10/gIQAhgWJ9M_blog.html