Obama to Push Volcker Reforms to Limit Big Bank Risks

That is a great start but he should also shut down the stock market, which is just a fraud that pushes companies to excessively risky behavior.
___________________________________
Stock market is up over 60% since March.

A report written by bankers for banks. I’m sure the recommendations make great sound bites.

Now that Obama gave away the tax payers money @ over $700 BILLION, He now wants to regulate after the $$$ is spent and mis used.

Why not reinstate Glass Steagall? We had a major financial crisis, we instituted separation of investment and commercial banking, we enjoyed stable growth for nearly a century. We then removed this separation and within 10 years we had a major financial crisis due to precisely the same systemic bank risk. Why not reinstate this separation, since it clearly seems to be necessary?

Peter Schweizer in his book Architects of Ruin, here fare pages nine and ten.
“Alinsky understood the world of finance because many of his early backers were financiers. Alinsky would brag, ‘I feel confident I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution on a Saturday, out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday, even though he was certain to be executed on Monday.’ Alinsky directed much of his fire against banks. He understood not only the power of banks but their potential to act as a fulcrum by which he could advance his ambitious agenda. They also make a convenient enemy. As Alinsky taught, finding an enemy was important. And thus he was quoted in Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.” This is what Hillary wrote about Alinsky: “In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative, they think consensus is better, but to organize you need a Bull Connor.”
Now, on page 23 of Schweizer’s book: “ACORN and other activist organizations also subscribe to the view that the banks were part of a larger structural effort to keep minorities and the urban poor oppressed. Banks were not simply in the practice of making money, they were political institutions whether they knew it or not, part of the privileged white power structure. Lending practices, therefore, were less a function of rational criteria than racial politics. With the arrival of the Community Reinvestment Act, the crusading housing activist discovered that they now had a seat at the table and a vehicle for their redistributionist schemes. By using a cadre of lawyers and an army of activists, ACORN believed it could dramatically alter the terms of the financial free market and force banks to lend to those they would ordinarily not consider qualified. As the sympathetic professor Heidi Schwartz put it, ‘Through the CRA, activists could extract resources from banks, take money out of them, give them to the poor and working class people, simply a euphemism for extortion and income redistribution.’”
Alinsky taught to target the banks. They’re a convenient enemy. Everybody hates ‘em. They think bankers steal and cheat and lie, inside information making them and nobody else rich. Alinsky said go after the banks, intimidate them and we take ‘em over and we get the money outta there to our constituents. And that’s exactly what Obama has done from day one. It’s all in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Limiting bank risk in the investment arena seems to be a back way in to regulating the stock market. As we all know, stock investing is gambling that has been given more respect. The value of stock (or money) is based on a herd mentality as to what we think it’s worth. All the fancy financial calculations are there to justify the opinion of value.
Limiting the increase of empty value seems to be a good thing. It lowers the risk to the people who are charged anti-christian usery debt.

Couldn’t this all be fixed by reenacting Glass-Steagall (1933) and repealling Gramm-Leach-Bliley (1999)?

They probably need refrom but I don’t know about that special tax he wants. However, he has no credibility with many of us until he looks at the practices of fannie and freddie and the characters that oversaw this operation.
Go after all the crooks not just some of them.

Why stop at Obama? Why not ask, How come the Bush administration did not reinstate Glass Steagall? Why not scream and yell, how come Bush administration paid all those trillion dollars in bail out monies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, of 2008 and the 6th one everyone forgot about that was signed into agreement with payments beginning in December 2008, yet never thought of putting in regulations to prevent the collapse from happening again?
And why didn’t anyone for the entire year of 2008 in the Republican party even think of coming down with regulatory anything, to prevent it from spreading into 2009?
We need the regulations. Stop backing the banks and attacking the only president so far, who is doing anything about it.

Posted by: pauldia
your post is nonsense…
Using Schweizer’s conservative doctrine is as foolish as using his other work crediting Reagan with winning the Cold War.
Occasionally you should try and think for yourself.

David (9:28 AM); Good point! We never hear anything about Fannie and Freddie do we.
Bank = Bad. Fannie/Freddie = Good. Goldman Sachs? Nothing to see here, please disperse…

–Why stop at Obama? Why not ask, How come the Bush administration did not reinstate Glass Steagall? Why not scream and yell, how come Bush administration paid all those trillion dollars in bail out monies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, of 2008 and the 6th one everyone forgot about that was signed into agreement with payments beginning in December 2008, yet never thought of putting in regulations to prevent the collapse from happening again?–
Because Obama is on his knees for Wall Street? Because he dumps more money to those institutions that start with “F?” Maybe because the unemployment rate that was supposed to stay at 8% has gone up? And how about those car companies, or the guys he hires, you know, one who doesn’t understand TurboTax? I haven’t even mentioned record defecit…He is Bush’s worst policies x100. And he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care. Probably both for Barry.

No mention of the blank check Obama gave Fannie/Freddie.
An endless bailout with our money.
Do the people know that?
Probably not because only one news outlet bothered to report it.

Please leave the banks alone – they are next to God.
Posted by: tierra |
Considering all the Goldman Sachs boys in the Obama Administration, so are the bankers.

is there really anyone here who believes that financial institutions don’t need to be regulated

‘Bank = Bad. Fannie/Freddie = Good. Goldman Sachs? Nothing to see here, please disperse…’
If anyone listen to Buffet yesterday he also questioned this tax deal on the banks stating that the bailout was meant to save the financial system from collapse and the tarp stuff worked as planned with the banks repaying and making the government lots of money. Buffet was a supporter of this President in which President Obama stated, quiet clearly, that Buffet would be one he would ask advice of.
The banks were pretty stupid in handing out big bonuses in the present climate(my opinion) yet to stick it to the banks and lay off fannie, freddie and the corruptacrats that ran it into the ground makes no sense and proves he is blind to the thieves working at the government level.
Obama needs a new team of advisors…and soon!

OBAMA: “It’s time to rein in the excess and abuse. Reform is necessary.”
That covers his views on the financial industry, the healthcare insurance companies, big oil and Corporate America in general. But what about the “excess and abuse” in Congress? Where is Obama’s call for Congressional reform?

But what about the “excess and abuse” in Congress?
Why drag Rangel into this? There’s no excess or abuse on his part. It is the lack of paying taxes…Me? I just made a mistake. Got confused and all…

Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by the Leech-Gramm bill. The Senate vote was along near party lines with the Republican majority. The house vote was more bipartisan. President Clinton signed it. In retrospect, it was a failed free market experiment that allowed banks to enter into risky investments with taxpayer backup. We need it reinstated.

All the recommendations are about more activity restrictions, more regulation and more transparency. The last one, transparency, has no meat on it. The real reforms should be about more disclosure. What everyone should know about these institutions are their top 10′s. What are the top 10 credit risks, by obligor, by country, by credit rating, by…? What are the top 10 market risks, by risk class, by single risk factor, by..? What are the top 10 conflicts of interest? What are the top 10 operational risks taken and experienced. What are the top 10 Money Makers?. The list goes on, but investors are not speaking up. Its Regulators recommending more regulations and more secrets to be told to secret keepers.

The only thing between Obama and the pitchforks is the MSM.
Where would he be without their protection?
Posted by: tyler | Jan 21, 2010 11:58:09 AM
Exactly and ABC is the worst, they prefer to post stories about how Obama is finally getting mad at the banks and is wanting to fight…
Obama talks big, but does very little.. in a few weeks we will truly see how he fights.. and I betcha there will be very litle differece to see.
All Barack Channel. ABC