Skip to main content

If you stayed up until 5:30 this morning with the conferees on financial reform on C-SPAN, you deserve a medal. For those who didn't stay up, here's a thumbnail sketch of what passed last night, and will likely become law next week:

Members of the House-Senate committee approved proposals to restrict trading by banks for their own benefit and requiring banks and their parent companies to segregate much of their derivatives  activities into a separately capitalized subsidiary....

At two minutes before midnight Thursday, some 14 1/2 hours after they began work Thursday morning, members of the House-Senate conference committee approved a final revision of the measure known popularly as the Volcker Rule.

The rule, named for Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who proposed the measure this year, restricts the ability of banks whose deposits are federally insured from trading for their own benefit. That measure had been fiercely opposed by banks and large Wall Street firms, who viewed it as a major incursion on some of their most profitable activities....

Banks managed to wrangle limited exceptions to the rule that would allow them to continue some investing and trading activity. The agreement limits banks’ investments in hedge funds or private equity funds to no more than 3 percent of a fund’s capital; those investments could also total no more than 3 percent of a bank’s tangible equity....

After seven hours of additional debate, the conferees approved revisions to the derivatives legislation that would require banks and their parent companies to segregate much of the derivatives trading businesses.

The final restrictions were not as tight, however, as originally approved by Senator Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the chief regulator of derivatives.

More on this as the actual details of the legislation emerge. But the bottom line, Scott Brown got his carve out and is apparently the new Olympia Snowe. For all of Blanche Lincoln's bluster, the New Dems in the House are tougher, and got their way.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:35 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It could have been worse. (18+ / 0-)

    Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

    by Drdemocrat on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:37:27 AM PDT

    •  That seems unfair (20+ / 0-)

      Everything I've read this morning - and I've been gobbling lots - indicates that this in fact, a pretty damn good bill.

      The Volcker tweak wasn't a gaping loophole - and no, I'm not a supply-sider, but there is some truth to the idea that one can go too far in limiting liquidity.

      The exception to Lincoln's spin-off provision likewise seems reasonable.  Derivatives - specifically CDSs and similar instruments - have their place, if properly used.  The carve-out here was simply that banks can essentially trade only on such instruments when such things are directly tied to assets they also have a stake in -- meaning, within the realm of banks, positions in a CDS serve their proper role... limiting risk.  Wild bets - and worse, bets against out of thin air - still have to be spun-off.

      Despite about 5 hours of reading up on the final results - I'm still not an expert, but the progressive reaction here seems more like knee-jerk "Dems suck!" than it does any sort of honest assessment of the legislation.

      The only way I can see disappointment would be from folks that truly wanted the whole system dynamited.

      To those folks - well - I think you best start making common cause with the P4VLbots.... eliminating the Fed and returning to some fanciful gold standard are certainly NOT progressive aims from any reasonable reading of progressivism.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:51:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll agree with you on that. (7+ / 0-)

        There are a few loopholes, but overall, the Dems didn't give away the store on this one.  I think it's a good bill!

        I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it! - Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://meldroc.com/

        by meldroc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:05:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the scorecard (9+ / 0-)

          I've pieced together:

          WINS

          • 97% of the "Volcker Rule"
          • Creation of the Consumer Protection Agency
          • Elimination of Bank-backed CDS speculation madness
          • Oversight of Payday lenders
          • Additional consumer protections for credit cards and transparency

          LOSSES
          • 3% of the Volcker rule
          • exemption for auto loans
          • Payday lender oversight isn't as strong as it could have been (i.e., falls under the FTC)

          As I've said in every comment, I'm willing to be shown why I'm an idiot... but I still await that first reality-based explanation of WHY I'm an idiot for thinking this is a big win.

          I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

          by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:19:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  BINGO (5+ / 0-)

            It is amazing how many around here can turn 97% of total victory into a loss.

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:35:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  BTW, I wish I could recommend that more times (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jennybravo, zonk, Matt Z, theworksanddays

            This sums up where we are at with this conference agreement, and what the knee-jerk "Obama and Dems sell-out" crowd are losing their shit over (i.e. it is not dynamiting the entire system of capital so we need to attack Democrats, crowd)

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

            by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:40:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  But the poor get socked harder (0+ / 0-)

            by scammy auto lons and payday loans than anyone else. The poor = no one's constituents.

            Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

            by barbwires on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:24:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barbwires

              But there is no answer for the poor that involves some sort of regulation of payday lenders or auto lenders.  

              At the age of 32 - I bought my first ever vehicle that required an auto loan (and it was a 3 year/$200 a month loan on a 4 year old car).   Up until that point, I had subsisted on public transit (while an urban dwellar) and beaters that cost no more than $4-5-600.  Absolutely - you've got your maintenance costs... lord knows I learned more about auto repair than I ever thought possible, and my local libraries probably still have copies of Chilton's manual with my greasy fingerprints on them, to say nothing of me having a near encyclopedic knowledge of the location of every auto-scrapyard within a 20 mile radius.

              It's not that I want to give auto lenders license to rip people off -- but at some point -- I DO think there's an element of personal responsibility... If you're at risk of getting a scammy auto loan -- should you really be buying a vehicle that requires a loan?

              I'm of a decidedly different mind on payday lenders - I've had the occasion to use them years ago - and it's NOT a pretty process... Using one means desperation time, last resort time and little good comes from that.   I got off lucky - I paid back both my loans under the terms (but I still ended up paying about $900 total to borrow $600), without incurring penalties that can stack up quickly.

              Still... what are you gonna do?  You could put them out of business - but in my case, that would have meant an eviction.  I'm just not sure what the answer is for payday lenders - they exist on the periphery for people who live economically on the periphery... having been there in my life, I guess I can just say that the BEST answer is be off the periphery - and that's a not a 'bootstrap' comment in the least, it's a "how do we help the poor move off the periphery?" comment.  Lord knows, I'm not the type that thinks "If I had to struggle, so should everyone else".

              I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

              by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:59:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Agree---so elect more D's and do a bill (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barbwires

              These need to be addressed, especially payday loans, but that is another bill and with the proper focus of what these usury concept evading loans do to people, attack the problem and have the votes to pass it by winning and not losing seats in November.

      •  It is a pretty good bill actually (4+ / 0-)

        I give it a "B-".

        There are already complaints that it may be too tough compared to the NONE Wall Street reform that other countries are doing right now.  

        Jim Manley: "Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

        by Drdemocrat on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:06:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thats what is needed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hestal

        The only way I can see disappointment would be from folks that truly wanted the whole system dynamited.

        not dynamited but seperated once again.  Sorry this fixes NOTHING.

        (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

        by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:09:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is effectively separated (0+ / 0-)

          Unless you think 97% separation from hedge funds or equity funds is too little separation.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

          by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:16:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  here, read what this allows (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            barbwires

            For Bank of America, the nation's largest bank with more than $2.3 trillion, that change allows the firm to invest more than $4.8 billion in hedge and private equity funds, an increase of 80 percent, according to the bank's 2009 annual filing with the SEC. Morgan Stanley can invest $1.4 billion, a 58 percent increase, while Goldman Sachs can invest $1.9 billion, an increase of just 10 percent, securities filings show

             IT INCREASES the problem

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:18:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Compared to the pure version (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amk for obama

              not compared to the status quo.

            •  So do you solve the liquidity problem? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amk for obama

              Again, I keep going back to the question.... Have progressives suddenly become P4VLbots when I wasn't looking?

              For better or worse - our economy runs on credit and the liquidity that makes it possible comes from the fact that these numbers tossed about ARE somewhat fanciful in reality... Just like the BP escrow account - yeah, BP 'made' 40 billion in profits, but even a college econ dropout like me knows BP - nor any company - could actually come up with 20 billion in actual capital at the drop of a hat.

              So long as we're going to live in an economic system where these numbers in the "trillions" and "billions" are tossed about so cavalierly, things like the above will be necessary.

              The alternative is the Ron Paul way... and sure - we can go back to running our economy on gold and silver coins, but in that world -- Sue "chicken swap" Lowden is a sage because that's PRECISELY what we'll all be doing... bartering chickens to live.

              I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

              by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:26:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  so you agree (0+ / 0-)

                so you agree with people like us, we are fucked because the system is fucked. Glas-steagl at least proved for 50 years it could hold this system ogether for a good chunk of time, now without it,  it has crashed and will crash again.

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:28:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We got 97% of Glass-Stenghall (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas, jney

                  That is what you don't get. (shakes head)

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:34:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no we didnt (0+ / 0-)

                    thats simply not true.

                    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                    by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes it is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Matt Z

                      I have had face-to-face discussions about this with Sen. Merkley back in January, and this is actually better (even with the 3% compromise) then simply putting Glass back in place as it was. This is 97% of what was needed from Glass as it relates to the market today, and not what the market was back in 1932.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                      by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 12:04:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Ummmm (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas

                  We still had crashes and wild swings before the repeal of Glass-Steagall... Were you alive in 1987?

                  We had S&L collapses under Glass-Steagall.

                  We had bank failures, and under-funded FDIC, and a PBGC drowning under Glass-Steagall.

                  I'm not opposed to a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall - but can we at least be honest it's in no way, shape, or form a magic elixir?

                  As I've said - the alternative to the current system is a Paulbotian fantasy.

                  If my choices are between doing what I do now and essentially being a subsistence agrarian (nothing at all against those do want such a life, it's just not my cup of tea) -- I'll take "fucked".... because "unfucking" us would mean a complete unwinding of the modern economic system.

                  I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

                  by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Most of the problem (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zonk, high uintas

              with the previous crisis is that almost all of the exposure was not reported to SEC because it was off-regs derivatives that were not fire-walled. That is why your cut and paste is misleading at best (and that is being generous).

              There is now a separation so that Fed insured banks can have at max. 3% exposure in hedge and equity funds. That is huge. That is why the Volcker rule was such a big deal because ti is effectively re-installment of Glass-Stenghall.

              Somehow getting 97% of effect of Glass-Stenghall is a sell-out defeat in your world.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

              by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:33:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  because its not 97% (0+ / 0-)

                there is much more to it than that.  The markets obviously understand that even if you dont

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:38:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand this quite well (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas

                  I posit that before you pop-off as if you know what the hell you are talking about and that I don't, because you are seriously off-base.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:41:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't understand most of this, but (0+ / 0-)

                    it's good to see you!

                    "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:44:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  please (0+ / 0-)

                    the #% compared to 0% which would of been in the volcker rule,  it has not much to do with what glas steagal would and wouldnt allow.  Banks can still be both investment bank and regular bank, still black mail us if their 30 to 1 leveraging goes bad.  They can still do most of the swaps.

                    Sosave me the bullshit.

                    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                    by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:46:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  3% (0+ / 0-)

                    3% has to do with the possible Volcker rule, that is it, that is all that pertains too, but you dont get that.

                    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                    by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:49:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  from Bloomberg (0+ / 0-)

                    their take

                    The overhaul, which still requires approval from the full Congress, won’t shrink banks deemed "too big to fail," leaving largely intact a U.S. financial industry dominated by six companies with a combined $9.4 trillion of assets. The changes also do little to solve the danger posed by leveraged companies reliant on fickle markets for funding, which can evaporate in a panic like the one that spread in late 2008.

                     but I am sure you know more than them too correct?

                    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                    by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:59:35 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Given what Christine Harper wrote there (0+ / 0-)

                      ...yes.

                      Since the 3% allowed under the slightly modified Volker rule represents a ceiling of about $3.9 billion for JPMorgan, $3.6 billion for Citigroup and $2.1 billion for Goldman Sachs. Particularly since that is less than 10% of the exposure that companies like AIG had of over a $180 billion.

                      cheers,

                      Mitch Gore

                      Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                      by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:50:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  again (0+ / 0-)

                        you simply dont understand what is being discussed here.  Leveraging is still allowed.  This changes none of that.  The volcker rule is but one small area, one which still allows for them to play directly with our money.

                        (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                        by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 02:34:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  More prooof you don't know what you... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...are talking about. The banks will be limited to 3% exposure on the hedge fund, regardless of how leveraged a hedge fund is or isn't. So bringing up leveraging of hedge funds doesn't matter since their are tighter capitalization requirements on the bank side of the 3% exposure. So even if a banks skin in the hedge and equity funds went entirely up in smoke Bernie Madoff style, their exposure is only 3%. So even with a full 3% with new capitalization requirements that ensure that it will not throw the bank into a capitalization crisis, which is why the 2008 crisis was such a catastrophe.

                          cheers,

                          Mitch Gore

                          Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                          by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Your selective quotes left this out ! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lestatdelc

                      This first quote is on the Volker rule adopted---

                      While the rule has been watered down, it still represents an important change in direction for a financial industry that had been allocating a larger and larger portion of capital over the last decade to making bets and investments with their own money, said James Ellman, president of San Francisco-based hedge fund Seacliff Capital LLC, which specializes in financial industry stocks.

                      ‘Casino’ Must Go

                      "You’re going to be taking out of the banks areas of investing that every 10 years or so, at certain points in the cycle, tend to have dramatic losses," Ellman said. "Effectively you’re telling the system: We have to take the casino out of the utility."

                      I think the folks who comment can do better than just lift a few sentences from an article if credibility means anything anymore on Kos.

        •  can you (0+ / 0-)

          tell me how it fixes nothing? I would seriously like to know.

          ~*-:¦:-jennybravo-:¦:-*~

          by jennybravo on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:51:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  thank you zonk. fighting the Dems Suck meme (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jennybravo, zonk, alkatt, Matt Z, amk for obama

        on kos has become my recent passion.

        I always wonder if they are Republican plants, since they play into Republican hands.

    •  Like a lot of accomplishments, (6+ / 0-)

      Like a lot of Obama-era accomplishments, It fixes parts of a real problem.

      People keep reminding us that the original Social-Security system didn't cover agricultural employees and domestic servants.

      Corporations are people; money is speech.
      1984 - George Orwell

      by Frank Palmer on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:56:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But at least it wasn't a mandate (0+ / 0-)

        to buy into private investment funds.

        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

        by Jyrinx on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:58:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well (0+ / 0-)

          true, but the government did just make a rule it only sends direct deposit payments now, so everyone must have some sort of bank account now.  Isnt that swell.

          (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

          by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:03:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  ....and it's still a bad analogy. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dark daze, Jyrinx

        The original Social Security system provided the framework for a universal system of old-age insurance.  It was just a matter of adding some excluded groups.

        The same cannot be said about the bills that have passed this Congress.

        They solve small parts of problems the actual solution of which will take entirely different approaches.

        Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

        by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:59:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah it was ssssoooo easy to fix (0+ / 0-)

          that's why it took 20 some years to.

          •  Missing my point. (0+ / 0-)

            It's not that Social Security was easy to fix.  The reason, for example, it excluded agricultural workers had much to do with the politics of race. And that's always difficult.

            However, easy or hard, it was fixable.

            This financial reform bill is not.

            (Incidentally, other bits of reform just get worse. The rights to organize that workers received under FDR have only been chipped away in the decades since. So there's also no guarantee that things will improve.)

            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:23:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's just silly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jennybravo

              and any objective reading of the major progressive victories of the last century shows that.

              I mean good gods the Clean Air and Water act started out as a study.

              This is a good step but it is just one step. And we will not undo the last 30 years without steps.

              I understand the desire for instant gratification but it is not happening

              •  What's just silly? (0+ / 0-)

                Some reforms get better; some get worse.  If the last forty years of our politics has taught us anything, it's that progress isn't a one-way street (look at what's happening to our Miranda rights, e.g.).

                Some reforms are improved, like Social Security.  Some are made worse (like the Wagner Act) or eliminated entirely (like Glass-Steagall and AFDC).

                One of the problems with HCR and this financial legislation is that, unlike Social Security, there's no real way to mend them through structurally minor repairs.

                Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:01:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                  you still have your Miranda rights you still do not have to say a damn thing.

                  The cops though are not required to be your best buds though and make their job more difficult.

                  Know your rights.

                  Frankly your contention is absurd but I understand gotta justify your hate.

                  •  Who or what do I hate, drache? (0+ / 0-)

                    Seriously.

                    This isn't about hate.

                    It's about my assessment of this Congress's failure to seriously address some of our most important domestic problems.

                    As for Miranda, Justice Sotomayor, hardly a wild-eyed radical,described the Court's 5-4 decision in Berghuis v. Thomkins earlier this monthas "turn[ing] Miranda upside-down" and "bod[ing] poorly for the fundamental principals that Miranda protects" in her dissent.

                    Then again, maybe you feel Sotomayor just has to "justify her hate," too.

                    And, of course, we had the right to not say a damn thing before Miranda v. Arizona.  So all this nonsense started by the Warren Court was obviously not necessary in the first place.

                    Keep up teh love, drache!

                    Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                    by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:13:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

                      this is off topic so this will be my last reply to your smear on Miranda.

                      Police should not be required to guess or read your mind. If you want to invoke your rights, invoke them.

                      As to the rest you seem to have an almost pathological dislike for this administration and our president. Any victory must immediately be rewritten into a defeat.

                      You must be a really unhappy person.

                      •  How bizarre! (0+ / 0-)

                        First, I'm not complaining about this administration in this thread, but rather Congress.  So I suppose I also have a pathological dislike of it?  

                        Second, how have I smeared Miranda?  I said that Miranda is an example of an important legal change that has gotten worse over time (e.g., our Miranda rights were stronger before this recent Supreme Court decision).

                        Your response was to claim that nothing's changed 'cause you can always just shut up.

                        I pointed out that was true before Miranda....so now I'm smearing Miranda?

                        You're just ignoring or willfully misreading what I write, while lobbing angry ad hominems at me that have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

                        I'm sure you don't care, but I'm actually a very happy person, though I'll admit that I try to avoid hanging out with small-minded obsessives like yourself.

                        I very much look forward to your not responding to this comment!

                        Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                        by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:34:05 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  that you want to hijack explains about everything (0+ / 0-)

                          good day

                          •  Ha! (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't even keep your own promise to STFU!  

                            And again with the imaginary accusations.  This time it's threadjacking.

                            This discussion was about the contention that the history of Social Security--which was, indeed, good but imperfect and then later improved--is a good all-purpose predictor for the likely future of all inadequate reform legislation.

                            I tried to explain how the story of Social Security really isn't the story of every significant reform in American history. And also that, unlike Social Security, neither this year's HCR nor this financial "reform" package form reasonable foundations for future solutions to the problems that they imperfectly address.

                            Your response to this was a series of angry accusations about me that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I wrote...plus a claim that nothing happened to Miranda this year.

                            I tried responding to the one on-topic thing you said: your contention that the case that Justice Sotomayor described as turning Miranda upside down had no important impact on our rights 'cause we can still just shut up.  

                            And then you continued to angrily accuse me of things that had no basis in this thread or reality.

                            OK.  That's my effort to reiterate the serious point I was making at the beginning of this thread and describe how I'm not the one threadjacking here.

                            Let me end on a positive note: the most sensible thing you've written in this discussion was your promise to stop responding to my comments.  I hope you return to it!

                            kthxbai

                            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you can't read a damn thing can you? (0+ / 0-)

                            cause I never promised to stop responding to your comments.

                            I promised to stop responding to your thread jacking and off topicness.

                            Since that's all your previous comment was, I pointed it out and bid you good day.

                            You still persist in this so I am done enabling you and your petty feud.

                            Oh and let's be clear here you made a point one that was and is refuted by any serious examination of progressive legislative victories from social security to medicare to the FDC to the Food and Drug Act and so on. That you tried to conflate Miranda with what Congress does is telling and further that you are rather lying frankly about your characterization of Miranda but this diary isn't about Miranda.

                            No matter how much you want it to.

                          •  You're still ignoring the Wagner Act and AFDC (0+ / 0-)

                            And Glass-Steagall.

                            It's simply not the case that all reforms get improved.

                            You're right of course that Miranda is not a matter of legislation at all. I used it as an example of how things have often gotten worse over the last forty years, not as a story about legislation.

                            Your repeated insistence that my comments are hate-filled and contentless doesn't make them hate-filled and contentless.

                            FWIW, I'm a 20th-century US historian by training and profession.  And I stand by my assessment of the histories of American reform legislation since the New Deal era.

                            And it remains telling that you still seem more interested in lobbing insults at me than in actually discussing the topic at hand.

                            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:00:38 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ugh fine one last comment (0+ / 0-)

                            since you have moved away from the off topicness.

                            Of course strictly speaking not all legislation is improved with time. Glass Steagall was repealed mostly cause of sheer hubris, hubris that we then had to eat.

                            But every major progressive legislature victory started out flawed. If you are a historian you know this already.

                            And frankly you have always had the same agenda, down playing victories and talking down the historical nature of everything.

                            Now I think it's hate that is driving you, maybe I am wrong. Maybe it's anger.

                            But whether or not my conclusion is right or wrong the observations that are the foundation of that conclusion are not in contention. Not even by you.

                            I stand by my assessment that you are cheery picking without offering any other method and without any regard for political reality.

                          •  My "agenda" is progressive change. (0+ / 0-)

                            When this administration, or anyone else, contributes to such change I can be very positive. For example....

                            I praised Obama's brave and important decision on giving same-sex couples visitation rights.

                            I praised Obama's reappointment of Dawn Johnsen.

                            I've supported plenty of reform legislation that I also thought was inadequate, including HCR and the stimulus package.

                            And I absolutely praised the legislative dimension of passing HCR. Whatever I felt about the final package, getting it through Congress was a real achievement. And the two people I feel were most responsible for that achievement, Reid and Pelosi, deserve enormous credit for accomplishing it.

                            If I am more often negative than positive, that reflects my feeling of where we are as a country today. I do think we're in serious trouble. I think our economy and way of life are environmentally unsustainable. I think our healthcare system remains deeply broken. I think our division of wealth is entirely unjust and indefensible. I think our foreign policy is militaristic and ineffective. And I think our now-bipartisan commitment to torture and targeted assassination is vile.  I wish I could feel more positive in my overall assessment of things. But I can't.

                            And I'll never apologize for taking the historical view of things. History is important. That's why I've devoted my life to it.

                            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:30:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Incidentally, if you want to see how one has... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...a civil disagreement, check out this discussion between me and zonk elsewhere on this thread.

                            I think we deeply disagree about many things, but rather than simply assuming that the other is an idiot or arguing in bad faith, zonk and I pretty quickly determined the nature of our disagreement.

                            Being pleasant to people with whom one disagrees really is a pretty good strategy in life, drache.  

                            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:05:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  like you have been civil? (0+ / 0-)

                            you have been off topic, blamed me for it and been down right condescending (as shown in this very comment).

                            You want civility? Why don't you be a model for it then instead of doing what you have done? Cause to me it flows both ways.

                          •  I'll let others judge the primary source.... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Matt Z, drache

                            ...of incivility on this thread.

                            I have, however, said uncivil things. Consider this an apology for them.

                            For what it's worth, however deep my disagreements with you about politics, I do not question the honesty of your convictions or seek to diminish them by chalking them up to irrational emotions.

                            Returning the favor would be a good starting point toward improving our discussions in the future.

                            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

                            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:18:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and for what it is worth I am sorry (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            GreenSooner, Matt Z

                            for my incivility.

                            It is clear we have disagreements about politics, but as with you I do not question your convictions either.

        •  Finishing your sentence (0+ / 0-)

          "They solve small parts of problems the actual solution of which will take entirely different approaches."

          ...and as a result they will continue to perpetuate if not ultimately exacerbate the problems. Take the health care 'reform' bill, for example. It does nothing to reform the underlying cause of the problem, the across-the-board privatized, for-profit system, and instead locks in the cause of the problem (thanks to our Mr. neo-liberal President!!).

          As a result -

          1. the 'reformed' system is widely expected to prove to be unsustainble in xx years time, because it does almost nothing to control costs (the main problem) and
          1. It makes real reform more difficult, because we now have 'reform' in name only (like we have 'leaders' in name only, 'Democrats' in name only, 'change' in name only, and so on). Congress will not be in the mood to addres this again until the system starts collapsing on itself, and initiatives at the state level will also be more difficult. I work on hcr at the local/state level in Calif and the 3rd passage of a single-payer iniative, once considered to be a slam-dunk, is now very dicey. Many Calif legislatures are disinclined to keep pushing for single payer now that we have a national bill and others are considering removing  key progressive provisions due to pressure from the White House/DLC not to conflict with their agenda.

          Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

          by virtual0 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with most of what you write... (0+ / 0-)

            ...but not Item 2.

            Your not wrong that passing faux reform can make real reform more difficult. But defeating reform would have also made real reform more difficult.  And predicting the political future is nearly impossible. I'm certainly not prepared to say that failing to pass this year's HCR package would make future reform easier in the medium or long run (and it certainly would have made it more difficult in the short run).

            On the other hand, one of the messages of the recent HCR fight is that real HCR is not going to happen any time soon, as both major parties are more or less bought and paid for by its opponents.

            Real HCR will have to be preceded by real political reform.

            In the meantime, this year's HCR package, while not real reform, did make some measurable improvements on the status quo.  So I supported it, though not very enthusiastically.

            Obama's belief in the rule of law apparently takes the back seat to Obama's belief in his own ability to make the right call as executive. - Scott Horton

            by GreenSooner on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:04:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  yes well I am sorry you find reality inconvient (0+ / 0-)
    •  Oh, for the love of pie. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, revgerry

      Really?  

      I guess barring the United States Marshals Service frog-marching CEOs into a public stockade to witness the signing of a law that limits banks from becoming anything larger than the Bailey Savings & Loan, some people will not be happy.  

      "Progress has never been a bargain; you have to pay for it." -- Clarence Darrow "Change takes time. It's a marathon, not a sprint." -- Widely attributed

      by LarsThorwald on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:02:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  do we know (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, sherlyle, bigchin, jck

    If she got her exemption for wal-mart?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:37:45 AM PDT

  •  And so, will this be yet another populist victory (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, GN1927, sherlyle, revgerry, bigchin

    by Democrats lost to the winds of teabaggery bullshit?

    Anybody paying attention to what's happened to the stimulus, health insurance reform, and everything else would say "probably, yes."  

  •  were there further compromises (3+ / 0-)

    on the consumer agency, or did it manage to stay fairly independent?  Did the auto companies get the carve out?

    At least some of the self trading and derivatives losses were regulated, both by size and separate entity rules.  

  •  Unfortunately, this analysis is incorrect... (7+ / 0-)
    ...the "reform" is negligible, at best. Volcker and 716 (in derivatives regulations) have been made meaningless as a result of what's just occurred. What you have here (and I do not blame the FP'er for this, because I admire her work immensely), is the "talking points" version of what just occurred.

    Regrettably, the reality is a complete sellout, as we'll all realize after further analysis surfaces in coming hours and days.

    What I'm saying here is, tragically, true. (More to come...)

    We are making a beeline to repeat the insanity that brought us to this point in the first place. This is regulatory capture writ large. ("We" just don't know it yet.)

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:42:19 AM PDT

  •  Sonuvabitch. The one time the House wins, (0+ / 0-)

    it's the fucking New Democrats that get what they want.

    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

    by Jyrinx on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:42:43 AM PDT

  •  Thing about Scott Brown is (5+ / 0-)

    given the Massachusetts electorate, and his shiny newness as a senator, he has more of a need to placate the liberal side and to move toward the center if he wants to be re-elected, than do either of the Maine sisters.  So he may prove to be a more gettable vote, for less of a payback, than Snowe.

    Having him in the mix also puts more pressure on Snowe to cave earlier, in order to hang onto her swing-vote influence.

    So while it stinks to have him in Kennedy's seat, it is not entirely without use for our side.

    Dude, your statistical average, which was already in the toilet, just took a plunge into the Earth's mantle. ~ iampunha

    by ETF on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:44:03 AM PDT

  •  Should I cash out my 401k? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze

    Wall Street will crash again.
    Everything that led to the crisis is maintained.

    Jesus, sad we never had the "Kill the Bill" movement on this one.

    This is Obama's Clinton signing glass stiegel moment.

    I hope he Vetos it, or makes sure no cameras allowed when he signs.

    •  and what, put it under your mattress? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drache
      •  many people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ScienceMom

        many people and many advisors think you do sit in cash.  YOu dont put it in your matteress per se but you keep it very liquid.  ACtually right now 11 trillion dollars is thought to be sitting on the sidelines, money people are unwilling to put in the market.

        (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

        by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:54:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that is absolutely true and that is partly why (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ScienceMom, drache

          there could be a double dip recession.  The markets are nothing more than a global gambling casino and if the gamblers stay away even the house loses money.

          Whatever surplus I have is sitting in a money market protected by FDIC account waiting for the right opportunity to come along, I prefer real estate to the stock market.

          I guess my point was that there are no guarantees and you can only legislate so much and protect people so far.

          There are oceans of liquidity sloshing around out there waiting fro a sure bet.

          •  yep (0+ / 0-)

            and sure bets are almost impossible to find.  Its very surreal.  I too sort of like real estate but I am waiting for the final 20% correction to take place in the next year or two and then I am looking toward ocean property, ( because as they say, there is always only so much water view property) but then again with global warming and flooding and now oil goo,  my god Im re thinking that.

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:13:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  If you have three bedrooms (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ScienceMom

        you can diversify among several mattresses for more security.

        To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

        by kareylou on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:36:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The bill is stronger than I expected. The only (8+ / 0-)

    reason we have any derivitives language is because of Bill Halter.  Bill it was all worth it.

    •  Obama said that he got 90% (10+ / 0-)

      of what he asked for.  

      Barack Obama just understands that decisiveness is not impulsiveness--and eloquence is not empty boasting. Shrum 6/24/10

      by Kitty on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:46:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup (7+ / 0-)

      I'm actually a little surprised that this bill survived the senate in this form.  Rather than joining the "Dems suck!" pile-on, I'm actually going to give some credit where it's due.  Not sure whether Lincoln was solely motivated by the Halter challenge, but I'm sure that the challenge helped.

      climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

      by GN1927 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:53:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  tell me whats good (0+ / 0-)

        nothing survived intact, its all watered down and filled with loopholes,  nothing changes.

        (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

        by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:55:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is this good or bad in your opnion? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GN1927, amk for obama

          The bill will force banks to be limited to investing a maximum of 3% of their capital in speculative businesses such as hedge funds or private equity funds.

          Good or bad?

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

          by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:10:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  its a HUGE increase (0+ / 0-)

            its a huge increase for many, its terrible

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:14:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  here is what that 3% now allows (0+ / 0-)

            For Bank of America, the nation's largest bank with more than $2.3 trillion, that change allows the firm to invest more than $4.8 billion in hedge and private equity funds, an increase of 80 percent, according to the bank's 2009 annual filing with the SEC. Morgan Stanley can invest $1.4 billion, a 58 percent increase, while Goldman Sachs can invest $1.9 billion, an increase of just 10 percent, securities filings show

            (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

            by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:17:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nonsense (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GN1927

              Most of the exposure was off-regs (i.e. not reported to the SEC) and not the numbers you claim are form the SEC reporting.

              cheers,

              Mitch Gore

              Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

              by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and how is that changed? (0+ / 0-)

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:29:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because commerical banks are not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GN1927

                  ceilinged at 3% exposure, unlike the unlimited exposure that was more than ten-fold what will be allowed under Volker. So if the commercial/holding banks derivatives go 100% tit-sup, it will not burn back to the commercial/holding bank side more than 3%. Which is why the crisis in 2008 was a near disaster. Because it threatened to deep-six the entire commercial banking side because there was limiting of the exposure.

                  No there is (or rather will be if this passes) at 3%. Which is entirely manageable given the capitalization requirements on the SEC reg. side of the firewall.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Their # appears to be 14 billion, which (0+ / 0-)

              is the value of the Global Principal Investments segment.  The smaller number that your source cites appears to be the unfunded equity commitment for those funds.

              •  right and it but (0+ / 0-)

                ad it but one segment, the one  segment in which they can play the casino risk free.

                Here is Bloombergs take on the bill

                The overhaul, which still requires approval from the full Congress, won’t shrink banks deemed "too big to fail," leaving largely intact a U.S. financial industry dominated by six companies with a combined $9.4 trillion of assets. The changes also do little to solve the danger posed by leveraged companies reliant on fickle markets for funding, which can evaporate in a panic like the one that spread in late 2008.

                 and imagine that, the basically agree with what I have been saying.

                (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

                by dark daze on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:02:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What Christine Harper misses completly (0+ / 0-)

                  as do you is, that this in essence makes the commercial /holding banks exposure to just 3% via hedge and derivative funding sources which is why this is such a big deal and why it is effectively the part of Glass that was needed to be put back in place.

                  A 3% exposure DOES solve the danger that was present in 2008. Which was unlimited exposure to the tune of more than 10 fold the amounts (over $180 billion for AIG alone) which is 22 times more than the combined exposure of the largest three banks you keep citing that would be allowed under the modified Volker.

                  cheers,

                  Mitch Gore

                  Who is a Tea Partier? Someone who listens to Glenn Beck. Who's an anti-Tea Partier? Someone who understands Glenn Beck

                  by Lestatdelc on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 12:16:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Lincoln wouldn't have sponsored that in a million (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oceanstateliberal247

        years if it hadn't been for the primary challenge.

        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

        by Jyrinx on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:57:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Proof of this? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          amk for obama, soothsayer99

          I think it's likely that the challenge motivated Lincoln to take a very clear and coherent stance re: finreg reform, however, please prove that Lincoln had no interest in this topic or plans to address derivatives prior to the challenge.

          IMO there are no grand pronouncements to make either way regarding that primary.

          climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

          by GN1927 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:13:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Right, but they watered that down too (0+ / 0-)

      Lincoln's provision, under fierce assault by the Treasury Department, the Obama administration, and a group of Wall Street-friendly Democrats called the New Democrat Coalition, also was softened.

      Lincoln's proposal would have compelled the nation's megabanks to move their swaps-dealing units, which deal and trade in a type of financial derivative product, into a separately-capitalized institution within the larger bank holding company. The affected firms collectively would have to raise tens of billions of dollars to protect their swaps desks in case their bets went bad. Or, they could have disband the activity altogether.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      •  But that seems reasonable (3+ / 0-)

        The weakening seems to have essentially been that banks must now hold positions in things they are taking CDSs against -- that's what a CDS was supposed to be used for... a hedge against risk... Loss insurance, basically.

        I really don't see what's wrong with that - the problem with the CDSs in 2008 seems to have been that they were being treated just like any other securities bet - you had banks trading them when they had no underlying risk on the original bet.

        This seems to eliminate that.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:58:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This sounds like partial victory (3+ / 0-)

    and if I am reading it correctly it sounds like a bigger partial victory then we usually get.

    REBOOTNY.org - Time to reboot the New York State Senate

    by Andrew C White on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:51:40 AM PDT

    •  Not really, (0+ / 0-)

      the talk through yesterday was if Volcker was carved out, then they would lose Feingold/Cantwell but gain Brown.

      They carved it out and didn't get Brown anyway, but Feingold/Cantwell caved.

      This is depressing--why can't Dems fight?  We need Spitzer back in the equation.  We need someone with "balls" other than "eyeballs".

  •  So everything GOOD was watered down.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze
    Neutered, or left out..

    Hard to believe, another bad bill...

    "But, But It can be changed!  We can get a PO right away after this passes, we can FIX THIS!!"

    Kinda like AUMF, HEalth Care, and everything else..

  •  Maybe some org will do a +/1 spread (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy
    sheet

    based upon $10,000 increments of gross income,

    how many shekels does each provision cost ME?

    Cuz you KNOW federal legislation OBEYS the following mathematical LAW -

    the more complex the law,
    the more ways they're fucking ripping me off.

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

  •  Here's a good review (10+ / 0-)

    from the business side.

    Businessweek.com

    Congressional negotiators today approved the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. financial regulation since the Great Depression, reshaping oversight of Wall Street.

    Lawmakers from the House and Senate worked through the night in a 20-hour session to reach deals on a ban on proprietary trading by banks and oversight of the derivatives market. This month, they’ve also agreed on measures to wind down big firms whose collapse might shake markets, to keep tabs on hedge funds and to make it easier for investors to sue credit rating companies.

    “When one says this is the biggest change in our financial regulation in 70 years, that’s not an exaggeration,” Stuart Eizenstat, former deputy Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, said today in an interview in Washington. “This is much more profound and much more far-reaching because it really deals with the new financial world that was created in a way by the end of Glass-Steagall.”

    Now is this as strong as some wanted, absolutely not. However, from my point of view based on what I was hearing awhile back it's stronger than I thought we were going to get.

    And FYI Brown did not get everything he wanted nor did Blanche.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:54:29 AM PDT

    •  I'm done with this thread the knee jerk dems suck (5+ / 0-)

      reaction is getting old.  usually it has some merit but I'm really not seeing it here.  I mean we were promised a  PO in HIR and we didnt get one.  I dont know what clowd you guys have been living on but this bill is basicly what was promised at the outset.  If anything it is more progressive than what was origanally promised.  I mean no one really has any real reasons for why this bill is bad other than grr I'm angry.  Yah we could have had Brown Koffman and Glass Stegal but that doesnt make everything else crappy. This really isnt a bad bill.  I am basicly pleased.

    •  It's funny how they call this the "most sweeping (0+ / 0-)

      of U.S. financial regulation since the Great Depression" when really the most sweeping overhaul was the death by a thousand cuts to Glass-Steagall prior to and then its death by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

  •  Fucking cowards and liars... (0+ / 0-)

    our Democratic party.

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 08:58:00 AM PDT

  •  I don't get comments like this (8+ / 0-)

    all of Blanche Lincoln's bluster, the New Dems in the House are tougher, and got their way.

    The derivatives legislation now in the bill is clearly a compromise.  Neither the House democrats nor Blanche Lincoln got their way.  This blogospheric-nervous-tic to present any compromise as a complete capitulation by the side you want and a total domineering victory by the side you don't want is really really annoying.  Most importantly, it is just factually-untrue, and another example of the progressive blogosphere parting ways with reality-based analysis.

  •  all in all from my reading not a bad bill (6+ / 0-)

    and apparently a bill that goes further then anything the EU is considering.

    •  I agree and you can expect some serious (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jennybravo, drache, amk for obama

      disagreements this weekend at the G20 meeting.

      It is excellent that at least the Congress go it together before the meeting. Shows some kind of  solidarity for the American position anyway.

      The time America could just impsoe their will on the rest of the world have gone the way of the dodo bird and there is basically a seminal struggle taking place globally between corporate capitalism and socialism. This is merely another step int he leveling of the playing fields.

      It is also encouraging fro the US position that the Chinese have been forced to tweak their currency as well.

  •  Here is the view from across the ocean. (7+ / 0-)

    BBC

    Major US financial reform agreed

    The US Congress has all but finalised the biggest reform of US financial regulation since the Great Depression.

    President Obama said the reforms would "hold Wall Street to account".

    Legislators stayed up all of Thursday night for 19 hours of non-stop negotiations to reconcile separate versions of the bill that had been passed by the two houses of Congress.

    Agreement was reached to impose strict limits on banks' ability to take risky speculative bets on markets.

    Speaking before the start of the G8 and G20 summits in Canada, President Barack Obama said he was "gratified" by the progress made by Congress.

    ...

    US bank shares greeted the news positively, with Citibank rising 3% in early trading, Goldman Sachs was up 1.75% and JP Morgan 2.25%.

    ...

    The bill represents a second major legislative victory this year for President Barack Obama - following healthcare reform - and rode a popular backlash among American voters against Wall Street.

    "We worry about big money," said Democrat Barney Frank, who headed the negotiations.

    "I worry about big money having a corrupting influence, but it is reassuring to know that when public opinion gets engaged, it will win."

    ...

    The bill introduces the so-called Volcker rule - named after the former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who proposed it.

    The rule is intended to ban banks from risky entanglements in the financial markets.

    US banks will be barred from taking big trading bets on markets.

    They will also be limited to investing a maximum of 3% of their capital in speculative businesses such as hedge funds or private equity funds.

    ...

    But banks will still be banned from dealing in credit default swaps unless they do so through the safety of a financial exchange.

    This measure will severely curtail one of the most profitable activities of the big international banks when they do business in the US.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

    No spin. Just the news. I will take it. Especially the last graf.

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
    Left's "disgruntleist" faction needs to take a chill pill.

    by amk for obama on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:03:35 AM PDT

  •  Eh? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    requiring banks and their parent companies to segregate much of their derivatives  activities

    How big a truck can be driven through that "much" loophole?  Is the refusal to reestablish the Glass-Steagall wall of separation purely spiteful egotism of those who have been shown in very practical terms to have been dead wrong but refuse to admit the possibility that their shit doesn't stink?

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:06:58 AM PDT

  •  As one who has been a consistent critic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, theworksanddays

    of Obama, even before he was elected, and as one who predicts that in the course of time and events we will clearly see that his health insurance program, on balance, will amount to little more than kicking the can down the road, and as one who acknowledges that he was in no way responsible for the blowout in the Gulf, but he was responsible for the lack of speed in cleaning up the MMS whose corrupt nature was known long before he took office, and he was responsible for the slow and inadequate response in the Gulf and he will be responsible for the adverse health effects that the cleanup workers will suffer because of a lack of respirators and other protective devices and measures, and as one who cannot even remember his education program which he mentioned in his remarks this morning before he left for Canada, I say that this financial reform plan is better that what I expected and I compliment him for it.

    I fear that the language of the bill will leave too much in the hands of those who write, and those who enforce, the new regulations. Discretion is the worst thing that regulators can have.

    But still this plan is a step in the right direction, and Mr. Obama deserves credit for it.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:10:32 AM PDT

  •  Federal insurance (6+ / 0-)
    This is a key passage:

    restricts the ability of banks whose deposits are federally insured from trading for their own benefit

    I can already hear the laissez-faire conservatives having a cow, but here's the deal for them:

    Your bank can do all the derivatives trading it wants with the assets you've deposited.  Since you don't like meddling by the federal government, your money will also not be insured by that government.  Let us all know how that works out for you.

  •  So the camel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    Banks managed to wrangle limited exceptions to the rule that would allow them to continue some investing and trading activity. The agreement limits banks’ investments in hedge funds or private equity funds to no more than 3 percent of a fund’s capital; those investments could also total no more than 3 percent of a bank’s tangible equity....

    once more manages to get his nose inside the tent.

    In a generation, if the system lasts that long, this percentage will be back to 100% with unlimited leverage.

    This is why lobbyists get the big bucks from their corporate masters.

    "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

    by Orinoco on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:19:23 AM PDT

  •  Hope to hear a lot more about this (0+ / 0-)

    on the front page.  Thanks for some decent reporting on it, and not just the triumphant statements about passing "historic" Wall St reform.  Those doing that are doing great disservice to their readers.

    Glass-Steagall was historic.  This #finreg is tragic.  

  •  Another bullshit Reform. (0+ / 0-)
    OMG, wrong, John! Total wipeout. Total sellout. Gross treason against the public interest by Democrats in Congress.
    The hedge funds and the derivatives business are the two single most corrupting influences in the American financial system. They must stand alone lest they pollute every other unit with which they are connected. As long as they are not stand alone entities bankers will bend heaven and hell to feed them and corrupt all other decision making in every other unit in their holding companies, especially brokering and product design, including any decisions involving main street and the individual investor /depositor. An absolute crying shame. This is no meaningful reform at all. Congratulations, Suckers, you've just been raped...again."

    The politico write up is a Republican white wash. The HuffyPo article is more accurate. 'Market making' is the basis for the unethical pump and dump schemes which have proliferated for decades. They buy up stock cheap, and then pump it out to the public and pop the price. As they do so, they unload/dump their own holdings at a huge profit. The combination of brokering and fund managing is a huge scam.
    Wise up. This is totally and absolutely corrupt. And they get to do with YOUR tax dollars. Money is fungible. The 3% rule is meaningless, as long as there is any federal money involved. and it does not reduce risk.

    And what shall we call the carve out.  The Brahmin buyout?  The Boston kickback?  Rediculous.

  •  Where can I find what Brown's carve out is? nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  This Reform Is A Joke (0+ / 0-)

    Could someone please explain to me how the genius minds that put this bill together could leave out Freddie and Fannie?  Or are they going to fix that in the future just like the HCR bill?  If my memory serves me correct, those two public-private entities hold more debt that any of the other major players.  Not by a little bit either.  I'm not sure but I think they were ass deep in the housing bubble too.

    Respect everyone, fear no one

    by sigsauerdude on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:36:57 AM PDT

  •  This is a huge win for the President--say it ! (0+ / 0-)

    To have Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd pull off this major reform of the financial world against the combined efforts of the R's and the Wall Street lobby machine is a huge win for the President and should be touted as such to the people of this country.  

    Adjustments, amendments in the future and quibbles can all be dealt with later, but this is just a huge victory and if the D's and other friends of the President do not see that and promote it among the voters and all who have been abused by Wall Street and stock brokers and corporate interests, then we have no one to blame after the November elections, but ourselves.

    This is how the world financial market see it---in the Financial Times on line

    Financial reform agreement fuels risk taking
    By Telis Demos in New York and Jamie Chisholm, Global Markets Commentator

    Published: June 25 2010 08:18 | Last updated: June 25 2010 18:55
    Friday 18:40 BST.

    . . . .

    The welcoming of an agreement on US financial reform has, for the moment, relieved ongoing fears that the US and European economies’ recovery is weakening and raised investors’ risk appetite.
    . . . .

    Some of the risk surrounding US banking shares may now be lessened after lawmakers in Washington finalised the sweeping financial regulation bill, though it is not quite the panacea for global growth that markets would need to stage a full-throated turnaround.

    "It’s an unambiguous positive that there’s going to be some clarity on regulation," said Doug Cliggott, equity strategist at Credit Suisse. "But I think there’s unfortunately quite a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross once the bill is signed before we have real certainty on things like capital requirements."

    The S&P 500 index in New York is up 0.8 per cent. Financials, which are 2.6 per cent higher, are showing the way. Moody’s is leading the pack, jumping 7.8 per cent after the reform bill softened some of the language on ratings agencies.

    http://www.ft.com/...

    I hope the progressive world will not peck it to death or ignore the huge success of the President.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site