BF2S Forums Sweeping Financial Reform Bill passed

Harmor wrote:

This will do to Wall Street what Obamacare will do to our healthcare system.

In other words...  nothing.

When there's a will, there's a way.

On the left in the picture, we have a flaming homosexual.
We have a so called Christian that funds partial birth abortions to his right.


I don't know who the other two are by site but I am sure they are evil too. Guilt by association.

So what you have is a rogues gallery of fags, baby killers, inexperienced hacks and the one dem who had the most to do with the housing bust.

@Turq: I wanted to make that joke

ATG wrote:

So what you have is a rogues gallery of fags, baby killers, inexperienced hacks and the one dem who had the most to do with the housing bust.

lol ATG, have you decided to go down the radical Christian mentality for your serving of crazy today?

Harmor wrote:

We should care less that Barney Frank is a homosexual.  What he does in his personal life sexually, as long as it not illegal, shouldn't concern us.  If you think homosexuality is a sin then pray for him.  Specifically about Barney Frank is corrupt.

What should concern us is what they passed.  There is some UGLY regulations in this bill that will stifle economic growth.  Even if the Republicans win enough seats in Congress they won't be able to overturn most of this because of the Obama veto.


You think this is 'sticking this to the banks'?  Well those in the private sector are much smarter than those in government and will find holes the size of Mack trucks in this bill and guess who will be stuck with the bill...US.

When costs are increased for business they pass them on to their customers if they can bear it.  Higher fees, lower interest rates, less access to credit - this is what we can expect.


THIS DID NOTHING TO FIX THE MORTGAGE FIASCO that forced banks to give loans to people who should not have had them.

Also this really hurts businesses that use derivatives (like Farmers, Trucking companies, and Airlines), to keep gas prices predictable and not as volatile.  Get ready for 'spikes' in prices when things like disasters or sharp market fluctuations happen.

Frankly, lower access to individual credit lines is a good thing. Granted, the banks should've done this on their own but giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a five figures credit card and easy access to a mortgage is a large part of the reason we're in this fiasco. We as a nation have become far too fond of personal debt and while I don't agree that it's the governments job to step in and tell people when enough is enough, enough really is enough. Economic growth, both at a personal and national level, does not stem from leveraging oneself today and praying that it pays off in the future. This is especially true when most of the debt is financing things that do not have a return on investment. Things such as cars, ATVs, boats etc should be things one saves up for over time so that one doesn't get hit with interest on top of built in depreciation.

While I don't feel that banks bear any moral responsibility in this mess, they did play the role of crack dealer. It's much easier to go after the supply of crack than it is to educate the addicts since most of them won't learn a lesson until they OD, and by then it's too late.

A society based on revolving lines of debt is not how it's always been and it's not how growth is manifested. While it is one way to do so, the risks inherent are far greater than if one were to save, invest and then when one has built the capital cushion, to invest in ones business, or buy a car, or ATV or boat etc.

So Harmor, just because it was a bill written by Democrats doesn't make the underlying premise for it any less relevant. It's not a socialist bill, nor is it a protectionist bill. It's not designed to redistribute wealth and it's not designed to put the banks out of business. All it does is create stricter guidelines that banks have to follow henceforth. Yes, there is a bunch of trash written into the bill but that happens no matter who is in control. The bill is meant to bring fiscal sanity, and yes, fiscally conservative banking practices, into play. Canadian banks weathered the financial crisis with gusto simply because they weren't giving out loans to unqualified buyers. They also weren't packaging them up into MBSs and CDOs and passing all of the risk onto others. Warts and all, even I, a devout fiscal conservative, can see the merits of the bill that passed yesterday.

Harmor wrote:

I hope you're right, but I do not have faith in the Democrat's that passed this bill (with 2 RINOs, Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown).

Slowing credit access slows economic growth.  But, as you pointed out, credit to those unworthy or unable to pay it back, should not be given to.

This article here so far is the closest to my view on this bill so far.  Let me know what you think after reading this please:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … activists/

Yeah, and? The article is taking the exceptions and making them the rule. As I said, there's junk thrown into the bill, but junk is present in every single bill that passes regardless of the party in power.

They're simply trying to score political points any way they can in the leadup to the fall elections. The bill simply isn't that bad.

Aren't you at all tired of every right wing news story and every right wing politician complaining ad nauseum about whatever it is the current administration does? If Obama wiped his ass with Charmin, the Republicans would be up in arms and telling the newspapers that he should wipe with Cottonelle. It doesn't matter what the story is, or even if he is really correct, they've set themselves up as the opposition party so everything he does is wrong. The abject stupidity reflected in this stance is why I have given up reading anything remotely political in nature until after the election. I'm sick of it, and it's not even a major election cycle.

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Aren't you at all tired of every right wing news story and every right wing politician complaining ad nauseum about whatever it is the current administration does? ...

It was 10x more when the tables were turned under Bush.  At least with Obama there isn't nearly every new outlet speaking against the President.

You sir have huge balls trusting that this bill will actually do good in this tentative economic recovery period.

Like the 20 new "offices of minority and women inclusion" in the bill.  Does that mean if you do business with the government you'll have to have a certain percentage of women and minorities?  And if you don't the federal government won't do business with you???  What does that have to do with financial reform?  I thought it was illegal to mandate racial and sex quotas?


I'm sorry, but I can not agree with you on this one.  The bill is bad and we the consumers are going to pay for it.

So because the Dems did it, it's now ok for you to do it. Two wrongs don't make a right. All both sides are doing is making people in the middle shut them out.

Update: As expected...all those news regulations are being passed on as fees to us the consumer.

Bank of America warns of new fees after financial reforms via http://www.drudgereport.com/

Why should we be surprised?

I find it funny when people what to 'stick it to business'.  What they don't realize is that all the costs of doing business are pretty much passed along to the consumer depending on how elastic the demand is.

In this case though I'm sticking with small banks that aren't leverage heavily in real estate.  I closed my Citibank accounts about a year ago now.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

I find it funny when people what to 'stick it to business'.  What they don't realize is that all the costs of doing business are pretty much passed along to the consumer depending on how elastic the demand is.

In this case though I'm sticking with small banks that aren't leverage heavily in real estate.  I closed my Citibank accounts about a year ago now.

Why? It doesn't matter what bank you choose. All deposits are protected by FDIC. Pick the one with the best interest rate

Yeah, but that assumes all your deposits can be protected.  Remember many of these big banks are buying up these little banks.  There looks to be at least 829 troubled banks...and when they fail they will be absorbed into larger banks.

I don't know if this is true but how long does it take to get your deposits back from a bank that has failed?

So don't put all our eggs or your money in one basket.

Are you saying that smaller local credit unions have higher fees than mega banks?