Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Czeslaw Milosz: A Life

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Email this item Print this item

House Revamps Financial Overhaul Proposal

Posted on Sep 23, 2009

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, responded to complaints from the business community in recommending his changes to the overhaul plan, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Under the guidance of Rep. Barney Frank, the House Financial Services Committee made changes to a plan designed to increase government oversight of various financial markets, ideally to avoid a recurrence of last year’s economic catastrophe. It’ll mean more focus on certain types of businesses than others.  —KA

The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Frank has told colleagues the plan would no longer require banks to offer borrowers “plain vanilla” mortgages and other products, which was part of the White House’s June proposal.

The Massachusetts Democrat also limited the types of companies that could come under the scrutiny of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. For example, merchants, retailers, auto dealers, real-estate brokers and accountants wouldn’t face scrutiny by the new agency. And the agency wouldn’t be able to approve or change business plans at financial companies.

Mr. Frank said he believed the Obama administration “overdrafted” the bill.

“In general, we’re very supportive of the changes” made by Mr. Frank, Mr. Geithner told the committee.

[...] Plenty of complicated questions remain, such as the future role of the Federal Reserve and how many bank regulators there should be, and there are still multiple lawmakers in both parties who either want the consumer financial agency scrapped or further limited in its scope.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By ardee, September 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

tropicgirl, September 24 at 4:49 pm

More than a bit out of line, way more….

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, September 24, 2009 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

After all, it took a while for Barney to service all the corporate appendages lined
up. Takes longer these days. The line is much longer and he is getting older.

What a sick piece of work.

Report this

By Random Items, September 24, 2009 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We need a regulatory structure that is based on
performance. When corporations show ethical
deficiencies the level of regulation increases. This
would apply to the base business, tax issues,
advertising, employee relations, public safety and
more. The more a company resists doing business in a
forthright manner the more intensely all of their
activities are reported and regulated. Any company that
can’t survive the scrutiny doesn’t need to be doing

Report this

By canyon critter, September 24, 2009 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

barney frank is the problem not the solution. he wanted home loans for everyone regardless of there ability to pay. there is no gov’t oversight. fcc is in bed with wallstreet. obama is owned my wall street. the big dogs got bailed and the little people got the bill. there has been no job creation. im tired of the healthcare bullshit. when there was jobs there was healthcare.

Report this

By ardee, September 24, 2009 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

“If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” GBShaw

I wonder if the best way to legislate is to compromise on everything? I do understand that this is the way our govt was set up but the fact is that the two sides are far too polarized to make such compromise practical any longer. The very attempt to please everyone means that noone is pleased and nothing is accomplished.

When I read this:

He also said he would limit the types of companies that could face scrutiny by a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency by excluding real-estate brokers, accountants, retailers and others that aren’t banks or financial-services companies. Rep. Frank said he felt that in some areas the White House had “overdrafted” the bill.

I recall the firm of Arthur Anderson, accountants to and complicit with Enron. What it boils down to, in my opinion, is that our govt will not really control the financial community while dependent upon their contributions.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 23, 2009 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment

Seems like politicization of US monetary has already taken place and
since publicly Bernacke “vehemently” opposes auditing, “watching” it in
other words, by Congress, who is much closer to the people and its
welfare, and seems past the point of no return.  It is politicized and as
the Manhattan US District Court Judge, Loretta Preska, wrote, who ruled
on an order that the Fed disclose which firms received bailout dollars,
that claim that the monetary system is imperiled by closer observation
was rooted only on “conjecture” and the court continues to be, she
said, “unconvinced because the Fed had failed to provide adequate
evidence to substantiate its claims.  Looking weak to competitors an
shareholders is an inherent risk of market participation.  Information
that tends to increase that risk does not make the information
privileged or confidential.”  Seems like the public who will foot the bill
for decades, no generations, to come ought to know where its dollars
are going.  Corruption is too close to the hearts of moneymen.

Report this

By Angel Gabriel, September 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well at least they’re shootin for the right perps - Bankers, Insurance men, and Lawyers. Could we at least see a little blood???

Report this

By Kath Cantarella, September 23, 2009 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Australian ‘bailout’ money was given back to taxpayers as a one-off rebate. If you earned under a certain amount per year, I think it was under $60K but don’t quote me, then Rudd’s govt sent you a cheque for $900 and asked you to spend it, not save it. So Australians spent it, and kept the retail sector up, and the retail sector helped keep the rest of the economy from falling in a hole, and there you have a tale of how you don’t have to take money off the poor to feed the rich to keep the economy healthy.

I believe Australia was the top-performing economy during the global financial crisis. That also has to do with the fact that we were in surplus when it hit, and had prudential regulations in place for years previously keeping our banks in line. And we currently have a real swotting egghead for a PM, he even speaks fluent Mandarin.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook