Update on Financial Regulatory Reform

So what’s going on with the filibuster threat? Are they doing a quiet climbdown?

Is this “And the bill goes a long way to appeasing the left”
based on this?
.

“Still undecided are three key provisions that look likely to drag the bill farther to the left”
.
As you write the concessions to the banks have already been agreed to but these have not.
.
What are the odds that all three end up in the bill not further watered down?
.
And I’m not sure anyone on “the left” feels the need to be appeased as much as they would prefer something good for the country.
.
But I take your point.

They’re nearly done and when they are it’ll be a big, much needed victory for Dems and President Obama.
=
And the loser? The American taxpayer
=

Not a word about Fannie or Freddie the original ATM for sub-prime mortgages. I am sure they will fix it—-after the elections.

==

““Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took over a foreclosed home roughly every 90 seconds during the first three months of the year. They owned 163,828 houses at the end of March, a virtual city with more houses than Seattle. The mortgage finance companies, created by Congress to help Americans buy homes, have become two of the nation’s largest landlords. . . . For all the focus on the historic federal rescue of the banking industry, it is the government’s decision to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008 that is likely to cost taxpayers the most money. So far the tab stands at $145.9 billion, and it grows with every foreclosure of a three-bedroom home with a two-car garage one hour from Phoenix. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the final bill could reach $389 billion.”

Blech. Reposting without links to avoid moderation. First quote is from Pew Research, second one is via Greenwald.
-
“The debate centered more on politics than the workings of the health care system. Fully 41% of health care coverage focused on the tactics and strategy of the debate while various reform proposals filled another 23%. But only 9% of the coverage focused on a core issue — how our health care system currently functions, what works and what doesn’t.”
-
Respectfully, Jay, I’d argue that this article’s focus on whether the “left” or the “right” is “winning” or “losing” is not the most informative way to approach the issue.
-
“Left” tends, in the MSM, to be a synonym for “extreme” or “bad” or “politically incorrect.” But they can be right on the merits sometimes. This quote, via Glenn Greenwald, springs to mind:

While industry officials praised his moderation, Mr. Salazar drew harsh criticism from some environmentalists.

“He is a right-of-center Democrat who often favors industry and big agriculture in battles over global warming, fuel efficiency and endangered species,” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of Center for Biological Diversity, which tracks endangered species and habitat issues. “He is very unlikely to bring significant change to the scandal-plagued Department of Interior. It’s a very disappointing choice for a presidency which promised visionary change.” …
Among those cheering the apparent Salazar nomination are the mining and agriculture industries, which generally backed Republican John McCain for president. ‘I first heard it Monday and was excited because I have worked with him when I used to live in Colorado,’ said Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association. ‘I know that he’s fair and balanced’.

freeinpa– Fannie and Freddie were not actually the cause of, or even a particularly important part of, the subprime problem (which, in turn, was not the only cause of the housing bubble). See, e.g., http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-credit-crisis/
-

-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;

-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders

-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.

-Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street — NOT Fannie & Freddie

-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.

-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.

-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

-
I’d add that the vast bulk of loans by private lenders that went bad weren’t even subject to the CRA, another commonly, but errantly, cited “root cause.”

Jay, reading your summary of the regulatory deliberations the thought kept occurring to me that it all comes down to honesty and transparency in financial dealings. Is that so difficult? Yes, when the deliberators are adverse to honesty and transparency and are greedy as well, i.e., politicians. Further, the public accounting industry deserves scrutiny and a seat at the table, as they, in the guise of brokers of truth, have prostituted themselves and contributed immeasurably to the problems that exist.

“A…big, much-needed victory?” We haven’t had many of those lately?? I fail to see many defeats up ’til now legislation-wise.

I sent a post (in moderation hell) that list several sources who disagree with St. Barry. And yet for all the vilification of Wall Street, the bailout of Fannie and Freddie will exceed all of them.

But the Dems are silent (and guilty) of perpetuation this fraud on the American taxpayer. No matter how much Barney Frank spits it won’t change the fact that Bush tried to reform it and he stood there and said the balance sheet was rock solid.

And now the left is rejoicing these same dullards “reforming”: our finance system

Left” tends, in the MSM, to be a synonym for “extreme” or “bad” or “politically incorrect.”
==

You are delusional. The idiocy of the left is protected or ignored at most turns by the MSM. This false protest is both hilarious and an out and out lie

freeinpa is fishing for punishment…

If I was fishing for stupidity then you could respond

Let’s save everybody the tediousness of your posts without a point.

Declare victory, you proved your points with “53facts” Now take a victory lap and lie down

I rest my case…

freeinpa is fishing for punishment..
I rest my case..
==
You know when mom told you you were special she meant in a remedial way. Oh you didn’t . That explains everything.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Why are links within commentary causing comments to be held pending moderation?
.
Is this the new policy of Swampland, that commentary that includes links must be examined by a moderator prior to posting?

“You are delusional. The idiocy of the left is protected or ignored at most turns by the MSM. This false protest is both hilarious and an out and out lie”
.
Physician, heal thyself. Or at least read your own writhing–er, writing.

‘Never had that problem. Does WordPress just single you out?

Stuart, this has been happening for a couple of weeks. Remember at first no links got through? The High Sheriffs seemed to fix it so that for the most part comments with single links made it, but not any with more than one.
.
Don’t know if that was your problem or not.
.
If not, then Daddy just likes me better.

Wow your points are as profound as IQ53s. But please enlighten us to that profundity of how the MSM is anti-left. No sense letting good comedy go to waste

well, there was the invasion of iraq
-
and the default assumption that “the truth is in the middle,” which favors the side without policy views

“But please enlighten us to that profundity of how the MSM is anti-left.”
.
I’m going to go with the near complete corporate embargo of real liberals and real experts from air or print for the past thirty years (why you have no effing clue what a liberal is) and the constant juxtaposition of radical “conservatives” and corporatist centrists as framing the debate on virtually any public policy discussion.

This is too simple.
.
Everyone else read 7.1 and 7.2.
.
Now, do you think you can tell me why I say the following, at 7.5?
.
I rest my case, again…

I’ll go with what shepherdwong said.

Thanks for your anecdotes, Ivy.
.
I’d really like to know whether this is policy or bug, actually.

Just to be clear, I think that it’s a multiple link embed problem, not just affecting my commentary, as indicated above.

Jay Newton-Small:
.
When you write
.
the bill goes a long way to appeasing the left in ways that couldn’t be achieved with health care
.
, what do you mean?
.
What about the legislation would cause liberals to step down our opposition to it? What specifically would we find less objectionable about this bill?
.
How does it accomplish liberals’ policy goals, in other words?

SZ I believe JNS is referring to this (from the story she wrote at the link)
.
“In the face of fierce bank opposition, and resistance from the White House and regulators, it looks like some scaled back version of Lincoln’s provision will be included in the final bill. Also likely to be included: the tough so-called Volcker rule, named for former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Paul Volcker, that would ban banks from trading their own holdings – essentially restricting banks from participating directly in the ultra-lucrative world of private equity and hedge funds. Finally, the fate of a House provision that would create a $150 billion fund to pay for the cost of dealing with bankrupt financial institutions, paid for with new fees on firms worth more than $50 billion, remains undecided”

PNNTO:
.
Thanks, but I still don’t understand the connection between
.
some scaled back version of Lincoln’s provision
.
and
.
essentially restricting banks from participating directly in the ultra-lucrative world of private equity and hedge funds
.
and
.
a $150 billion fund to pay for the cost of dealing with bankrupt financial institutions, paid for with new fees on firms worth more than $50 billion,
.
and liberals’ policy goals.
.
How are these things related to liberals’ policy goals? What liberal goals would be accomplished?
.
Conversely, how would these policies defy the centrist or conservative agenda?
.
I’m also asking JNS to spell out whether or not these merely “appease the left” by creating the appearance of accomplishment, or whether there will in actuality be forward movement on liberals’ policy agenda.
.
See, I’m dumb like that, and I need smart folk like Jay Newton-Small to help me connect things together.
.
So, I’d like JNS to assist my understanding of which specific liberal goals are being fulfilled by these items, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble for her.

SZ-that’s what I was trying to get at in #2 above.
.
Perhaps you will have better luck.
.
Also these “appeasements” aren’t settled and to the extent something like the Volker Rule would be good as is wait until it has been bargained down.
.

Well said Sheperd.

Simple you are.

Declare victory, you proved your points with “53facts” Now take a victory lap and lie down

Still stands

“This false protest is both hilarious and an out and out lie.”
.
Starting with Ronald Reagan the word “liberal” has been demonized. Michael Dukakis was attacked for being a “a card holding member of the ACLU” (mimicking McCarthy calling people “card holding members of the communist party”)
.
If you did not notice your own party using words “liberal” and “left” as substitutes for “moron” and “fck a-h” then you must have been living on another planet Freon in Pa.

Freon,
.
Your problem is that facts are the worst enemy of your arguments, so, you kill the messenger.

I hate posting late.

I miss all of the debates.

OTOH, I miss all of the debates and don’t slaughter too much of my time with wingnuts.

Generally this looks good. Unfortunately Glass Stegall, the original legislation of 1932 served us very for well for 67 years until our Third way president Clinton let the Republican repeal it as if banks suddenly became totally different institutions with totally different goals and personalities by 1999.

Banks are the safe, nerdy guys who can easily have a job for life but will never own five homes, more than two Mercedes (unless they reach CEO) rather than the wild Wall Street guys who may loose their job and life savings in the blink of an eye, but do have all of those things. Hence, bankers like the safety of the bank but dream of the wealth and excitement of finance and are dying for something adrenalin pumping to do for a living.

Correction: there is a difference. In 1999 it was a Mercedes they wanted to drive. In 1932 it was Dusseldorf (where the term “it’s a duzy” came from – the few out remaining ones out there, eight year old cars can still race down a highway). Outside of that, nothing changed in terms of who bankers are and who they are tempted to become.

Excellent commentary, patricksartor.

The implicit and unstated escapes him.

you must have missed it. there’s this big oil spill thats been giving Obama hell politically.

its gremlins. always makin trouble