Want less government regulation?

[Guns Guns Guns]

"We passed Wall Street reform, which they fought tooth and nail. But what it did was is it made sure that they can't make some of these same reckless bets, they've got to keep more capital so that if they make a bad bet, taxpayers don't pick up the tab. We put in place this consumer advocate that will work with families all across the country on things like mortgages, credit cards, payday loan operations, so that people have more information and they don't get tricked into bad financial deals," President Obama said on NBC's "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.


"Look, these financial institutions are in to make money and that's why we need some smart regulations and this is an example of the difference in this campaign because my opponent says he wants to roll back all those regulations. These folks are not going to do it just out of a sense of guilt of what happened previously or because suddenly they feel charitable," Obama told Leno.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...y_and_thats_why_we_need_to_regulate_them.html

 

[SmarterthanYou]

they've got to keep more capital so that if they make a bad bet, taxpayers don't pick up the tab

what a crock of shit. the ONLY reason taxpayers had to pick up the tab was because of obama and every other politician out there.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

"We passed Wall Street reform, which they fought tooth and nail. But what it did was is it made sure that they can't make some of these same reckless bets, they've got to keep more capital so that if they make a bad bet, taxpayers don't pick up the tab. We put in place this consumer advocate that will work with families all across the country on things like mortgages, credit cards, payday loan operations, so that people have more information and they don't get tricked into bad financial deals," President Obama said on NBC's "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.


"Look, these financial institutions are in to make money and that's why we need some smart regulations and this is an example of the difference in this campaign because my opponent says he wants to roll back all those regulations. These folks are not going to do it just out of a sense of guilt of what happened previously or because suddenly they feel charitable," Obama told Leno.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...y_and_thats_why_we_need_to_regulate_them.html

So what financial regulations do we need that we don't already have?

 

[Crashk]

So what financial regulations do we need that we don't already have?

Do your own homework.

 

[Damocles]

Not less, I want effective regulation. Telling people to give "fair" loans to those in red zones without defining what "fair" is, fining some for not giving "fair" loans using an undefined term of "fair" then allowing them to bundle and play hot potato with loans the banks knew were bad but gave from fear of fines led us to the debt crisis. That was ineffective regulation in every way except the one way of Rs and Ds both proudly declaring that there were more <insert group here> that owned houses than ever before...

Nowadays we have "give good loans" without defining what the good loan is, and some have been fined on this undefined term. This makes banks afraid of giving loans without super stringent checks and making the money difficult to obtain. This isn't helping either.

Better regulation, not "less" or "more"... That is what we need.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Do your own homework.

I know you think you are being cute, but you should actually think about what you are writing before you put fingers to keyboard. How exactly am I supposed to do homework on someone else's opinion? Seems sorta silly don't you think?

No wonder you libtards are so gullible and fall for everything the halfrican american kenyan born douchebag says. You have the literacy of a retard

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Not less, I want effective regulation. Telling people to give "fair" loans to those in red zones without defining what "fair" is, fining some for not giving "fair" loans using an undefined term of "fair" then allowing them to bundle and play hot potato with loans the banks knew were bad but gave from fear of fines led us to the debt crisis. That was ineffective regulation in every way except the one way of Rs and Ds both proudly declaring that there were more <insert group here> that owned houses than ever before...

Nowadays we have "give good loans" without defining what the good loan is, and some have been fined on this undefined term. This makes banks afraid of giving loans without super stringent checks and making the money difficult to obtain. This isn't helping either.

Better regulation, not "less" or "more"... That is what we need.

What is interesting is that Canada completely avoided this entire mess. Why is that? Well, I can't prove cause and effect, but I do know that in Canada the federal gobblement does not subsidize home ownership. Most Canadians do not take out mortgages. I will let others draw their own conclusions

 

[Damocles]

What is interesting is that Canada completely avoided this entire mess. Why is that? Well, I can't prove cause and effect, but I do know that in Canada the federal gobblement does not subsidize home ownership. Most Canadians do not take out mortgages. I will let others draw their own conclusions

It was easy, they didn't fine banks for not giving loans to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify. Because of that they didn't go stupid in the opposite direction when it exploded and start fining banks for giving loans that aren't "good" without defining "good"...

Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Regulation caused the problem, regulation is exacerbating the problem; to fix it we need some effective and intelligent regulation that isn't punitive and is well defined.