Wall Street Demands Derivatives Deregulation In Government Shutdown Bill

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6272776

5 U.S. Banks Each Have More Than 40 Trillion Dollars In Exposure To Derivatives

Another bad idea whose time has come. The derivative market is like a shell game, eventually it comes to an end.

Every provision of Glass-Steagall needs to be re-legislated and passed back into law.

These are the same "too big to fail" banks we bailed out a few years ago. Wow, they really learned their lesson.

Let the fuckers go down or survive on their own!

Which party is mostly for this and which party is mostly against it?

Have we not learned anything?

Another example of how it is not the poor that the middle class should worry about but the well connected bankers...

Every provision of Glass-Steagall needs to be re-legislated and passed back into law. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

These are the same "too big to fail" banks we bailed out a few years ago. Wow, they really learned their lesson.

Let the fuckers go down or survive on their own! Originally Posted by boardman

What will do more damage to this country?

The CIA report or this provision?

Looks like they are going after the Tea Party too

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...j?ocid=U221DHP
A massive expansion of party fundraising slipped into a congressional budget deal this week would fundamentally alter how money flows into political campaigns, providing parties with new muscle to try to wrest power back from independent groups

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been leading the opposition to stop this legislative change (contained in the new budget). She is on the right side of the issue. It is ashame that she didn't prevail and kill the budget.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been leading the opposition to stop this legislative change (contained in the new budget). She is on the right side of the issue. It is ashame that she didn't prevail and kill the budget. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

To Big To Fail, just shows who really runs this country ..... Colossal failure by both parties but by the GOP just a tad more.



.

To Big To Fail, just shows who really runs this country ..... Colossal failure by both parties but by the GOP just a tad more.



. Originally Posted by WTF

My apologies to my Obama hating friends such as TheDaliLama. ...Obama is to blame too.


.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, urged House Democrats to vote against the spending bill. Because many conservative Republicans won't vote for the bill, House Speaker John Boehner needs Democratic votes to pass it.

"We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in the country," Warren said.

Maxine Waters of California, the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said she was "disgusted that in a back-room deal, some members and lobbyists for the largest banks are trying to undo a seminal component" of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. There has been a flurry of action by bank lobbyists seeking to use the must-pass budget bill to undo provisions of Dodd-Frank.

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District, who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee, introduced legislation with Rep. Randy Hultgren, D-Ill, last year that would "allow banks to keep commodity and equity derivatives in federally insured units.”

Himes spokesman Greg Vadala said the language in the budget bill is identical to Himes’ legislation.

http://ctmirror.org/himess-provision...s-budget-bill/

And Odumbo and Jamie Dimon served as the whips to keep the dim-retards in-line, per Maxine Waters.

The provision of the bill dealing with banks was written in it's entirety by Citigroup executives and does nothing more than protect five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. Basically they want to gamble with derivatives. If they gamble correctly they keep the money, if they gamble wrong they want the US tax payer to bail them out. So no matter what they do they don't lose money. The piece of shit Congressman who slipped this in is Kevin Yoder from Kansas who promptly dropped out of sight as soon the bill passed. He is bankrolled entirely by the financial industry. It would be easy to blame the Republicans but this piece of shit is probably just using the party to get elected, get this bill passed, get paid off by the financial industry and then will leave after his term is over and go to work for one of them.

The provision of the bill dealing with banks was written in it's entirety by Citigroup executives and does nothing more than protect five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. Basically they want to gamble with derivatives. If they gamble correctly they keep the money, if they gamble wrong they want the US tax payer to bail them out. So no matter what they do they don't lose money. The piece of shit Congressman who slipped this in is Kevin Yoder from Kansas who promptly dropped out of sight as soon the bill passed. He is bankrolled entirely by the financial industry. It would be easy to blame the Republicans but this piece of shit is probably just using the party to get elected, get this bill passed, get paid off by the financial industry and then will leave after his term is over and go to work for one of them. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Fascinating! Yoder is saying the same thing Himes and Hultgren are saying. They said they were for it.

The Republican said he did not know the repeal language would be used in the recent bill ...

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/gover...#storylink=cpy

Basically they want to gamble with derivatives. If they gamble correctly they keep the money, if they gamble wrong they want the US tax payer to bail them out. So no matter what they do they don't lose money. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Simplistic nonsense. Do you even know what a derivative is? Can you provide any examples of derivatives and explain how they work? Do you know which types of derivatives are affected by this bill? Do you know that derivatives are normally used not to "gamble" but to reduce risks and potential losses? Have you talked to any bankers to find out why it makes sense to put derivatives on the balance sheet they are intended to hedge, instead of in a completely separate subsidiary? You haven't done a lick of homework on this issue. And you won't because your mind is closed to what you don't understand.

The federal government is just the handmaiden of the corporations.

Simplistic nonsense. Do you even know what a derivative is? Can you provide any examples of derivatives and explain how they work? Do you know which types of derivatives are affected by this bill? Do you know that derivatives are normally used not to "gamble" but to reduce risks and potential losses? Have you talked to any bankers to find out why it makes sense to put derivatives on the balance sheet they are intended to hedge, instead of in a completely separate subsidiary? You haven't done a lick of homework on this issue. And you won't because your mind is closed to what you don't understand. Originally Posted by lustylad

After reading articles at the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, I understand that the Dodd-Frank Bill was considered too restrictive for agricultural related business and banking. I also understand the reason why the Yoder rider and the Himes bill are so similar (apparently, almost verbatim) is because they were written by Citigroup, et al, lobbyist.

It's fair to say that the variables related to weather and pests make agriculture a financial gamble every year. But it is a necessary gamble, and that gamble is far preferable to the guarantee of famine that would result should no one undertake that risk. In this instance, derivatives make sense.

Conversely, we also know that it was derivatives used to hedge the banks' risks in the sub-prime mortgage industry -- "the Perfect Storm" -- that brought the U.S. financial system to its proverbial knees in 2007. I am genuinely interested in knowing how it will be different this time. The New York Times argues that there is no distinction between what this rider does for agriculture and how the banks can use it in other markets.

LL, can you explain how it will be different this time? Do not take this as a belligerent challenge, but rather accept it as a sincere request for more information and better understanding.

BTW, I came across this article this morning. This article points out that it wasn't just Citigroup:

"[R]egional banks also have their fingerprints on it: They are arguably affected more by the rule, because big banks have been able to skirt derivatives rules by moving their swaps-shops into overseas subsidiaries — the Bank of Oklahoma, you might guess, has no subsidiaries in Europe."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2557482