Democrats Add Momentum to G.O.P. Push to Loosen Banking Rules

Jan 15, 2018 · 371 comments
John (Bernardsville, NJ)
If you roll back the rules then be sure to put language in there that makes it clear that if a 2008-like meltdown occurs again due to fiscal games being played then people will go to prison and banks will not be bailed out again. Seem fair, no?
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
All Americans can get behind the bipartisan push to rid America of the senseless, costly, job-killing Dodd-Frank disaster
Planetary Occupant (Earth)
Banking regulations are already less onerous in this country than in others. If there could be a truly bipartisan study and minimal adjustment to the existing regulations that might be a good thing, but this effort just does not smell good.
Pontifikate (san francisco)
Oh! Democrats have found something they can help the Republicans on --and in the process eliminate the best argument for Democrats to be elected and the notion that there's no difference between parties.
pointofdiscovery (The heartland)
Fine. Now add provisions to jail management and claw back cash for bad banking behaviors, such as risky bets/arbitrage, losses and/or need for any bail out. Put in provisions that make the whole corporation liable for all of its divisions. Profits accrue to these, so all losses should. Last time around they were 'too big to jail', so fix that in this bill.
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
The wild, costly, job-killing regulatory excesses of the Obama regime must go!
Eric (NY)
The Glass-Steagall Act needs to be resurrected from the dead.
Selena61 (Canada)
Hmmmmmmm. It must be 10 years or so since the last financial debacle, it's time to shear the sheep again.
TheraP (Midwest)
Why am I suddenly living in a two-bit dictatorship?
Nick C (Montana)
“Lord, what fools these mortals be.” — Shakespeare, A Midsummer’s Night Dream Greed can always be counted upon to cloud mortals’ judgment more than love and fairies’ potions combined. Not just cloud, but greed shreds any sense of judgment, reason, or morality, especially now as our democracy drowns in a rising tide of venality.
Happy Selznick (Northampton, Ma)
Tim Kaine would have been such a good Republican VP! What happened? (Thank you Dems for reminding me why you are the Whig Party of our era.)
Darcey (RealityLand)
When there is money to be had, neither party has scruples. Shame on the Democrats for this money grab, but surprise? You've got to be kidding. These parties are vapid, venal and useless.
Brakes, who needs brake said the conductor to the engineer.
DavidLibraryFan (Princeton)
Legalize insider trading. Repeal the Sherman act. End the pattern day trading rules; specifically the margin requirement. End the ban on naked short selling.
gene (fl)
Estimates are 6-7 trillion tax dollars in bailouts and intrest lost to zero intrest loans. Banks and major corporations were made whole ( didnt lose a penny ) from our tax dollars . We want to trust these psychopaths again? The Democrats let all this happen with no jail time. They are worse than the Republicans because they say they are on the middle classes side. Let it crash then burn Wall Street to the ground next time. We can have a reality tv show where middle class people hunt CEOS and lawmakers down for a great gallows finally.
Charles Grover (Central New York)
Her we go again!
Stevenz (Auckland)
The biggest enemy democrats have is democrats.
Diogenes (Florida)
Why does it seem like deja vu all over again?
David Henry (Concord)
Hey, risk your money people, but don't come crawling back for help when you go belly up.
skater242 (NJ)
You know what they say about those who ignore history......
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
Yup! Big Government socialism has failed everywhere every time, yet Crazy Bernie wants to impose it on us again
CSW (New York City)
Democrats and Republicans, in such moments, reveal themselves to be Tweddle Dee and Tweddle Dum. They share in subservience to Wall Street, Bankers and corporate CEOs.
The 1% (Covina)
Trump calls Dodd-Frank a "disaster". Why? Well, I'd bet it is because his family could not get a loan because he was too risky and Dodd-Frank stopped it. Or one of his banker friends asked for a favor and oh yes they sure deserve it after getting wads of cash in the so-called Tax-Reform Act. DC denizens are all fools for assuming Big Banks have Americans' interest in mind. They have their own off-shore bank accounts in mind. Maybe after we loosen The Bank Cowboys from regulations a bank can lend a guy like Trump money, then he can lose it all on some shady deal, and taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to foot the bill no matter what in the form of less greenbacks in the Treasury after another of his investments goes south.
Abel Fernandez (NM)
The Republicans have been maligning Democrats since Obama took office and their leader, McConnell, vowed to do everything in his power to undo anything Obama did. He succeeded on many fronts. Now some foolish Democrats want to work with Republicans to ease banking regulations and spur unfettered capitalism all because of a raging bull market and some crazy theory that the wealthy are going to reach down and lift the poor and working class up. Nope. They are going to buy more real estate and yachts and bunkers in New Zealand as the stock market hoopla goes south.
Nora (New England)
Thank you Senator Warren!
S Taylor (New York)
Might as well try it! After all, what could go wrong?
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
If Dodd-Frank is so great, why didn’t it prevent Bernie’s wife Jane Sanders from bankrupting Burlington College? I hope the Grand Jury finds out!
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
Even Democrats see the common sense need to rid America of the onerous, costly, mindless Dodd-Frank regulations.
Hugh Wudathunket (Blue Heaven)
Eight years ago today, the Bank of Clark County was shut down by Washington state and the FDIC. It marked the beginning of a wave of small bank failures and bailouts that contributed to the Great Recession. Do we really need to learn that lesson again, so soon after the terrible damage was done. The national government is still deeply in debt from that misadventure (brought on, in part by Republican financial deregulation). We know that this will just be a repeat of the last scandal and an addition to its burdens. Why not try something new? If the banks want to gamble, let them do so without federal backing. Those that want to put their money into such a bank will be free to do so. Banks that see an advantage to FDIC insurance can play by the rules that were created to reduce the likelihood of a disaster like the one that unraveled the world economy less than a decade ago.
Tom Carney (Manhattan Beach California)
Thes eleven need a BIG wake up call! HOw many are up for election in 2018?
Matthew (Maryland, USA)
If it weren't for Elizabeth Warren I would have given up on the Democrats long ago. Listen up! Millennials are sick of the corporate centrism. It's cowardly to bow to corporate interests in the face of protest from your voters. Banks might donate to campaigns, but I'll do my best to make sure Republican-lites get primaried. This isn't radical progressivism. This is protecting our society from repeating mistakes that are still fresh in many minds. Perhaps the rich think we've forgotten. We won't.
Arya (Winterfell)
OK, Democrats: You know what you have to do - get rid of them. There are better Democrats. Primary them. They’re outta here.
Clayton Marlow (Exeter, NH)
Bring back Glass Steagall. Bad things happen when democrats act like republicans. Clinton repealed Glass Steagall and ten years later we had the 2008 disaster.
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
Thank you, President Trump, for returning sanity to Washington
imperato (NYC)
Pretty clear that money was distributed to grease the skids. Government for sale.
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
In addition to common sense tax cuts, another factor in the booming Trump economy is ridding America of the orgy of mindless, costly, Jin-killing regulations Obama imposed out of spite and hatred for freedom, capitalism and America.
teacher (Oakland)
Typical corruption. Very disheartening. When Wall Street puts you in office, you pay them back in kind. Thanks "democrats."
Kevin (Red Bank N.J.)
Are you kidding me! Jamie Dimon should be in jail along with others for the 2008 crash. When will we ever learn, as if banks aren't making money today. We need regulations because without them 2008 will happen again!
John (San Francisco, CA)
To all: Cross Senator Elizabeth Warren at your peril.
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
The money banks and other companies are saving in taxes and reduced regulatory burden is going back to the workers in bonuses and higher salaries! Sorry Democrats, that money isn’t going to Big Government or the Regulatory State, it’s going to its rightful owner: the American People!
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
We need more regulation of greedy Big Government and less regulation of the productive private sector
tomasi (Indiana)
We did not learn from 2008 because we were not taught the root causes of the 2008 Panic. In the 1930's, we had the Pecora Commission and its conscientious investigation of a truly horrible marketplace, dominated by flim-flam men, grifters, con men, and hucksters. A bumper crop of Bernie Maddofs. Ferdinand Pecora, an Italian immigrant, stage-managed the postmortem on the Crash of '29. In 2008 and 2009, we missed our chance to do the same... Instead of conducting hearings on the gross amplification by Wall Street of risks created by seedy practices in the mortgage industry, we settled for passage of a very good bill without doing the hard work of educating the electorate.. or even their representatives it seems. I support Senators Warren and Brown.
Eleanor (Augusta, Maine)
It is pretty obvious that all the Repubicans and many Democrats favor the plutocrats over those whom they supposedly represent. It is time for more stringent civics and government education in our schools so the electorate can adequately rate their so-called representatives.
Jeremy Larner (Orinda, CA)
Perhaps these banks might first indicate public responsibility by again paying decent interest on savings accounts. Until they do, one's money will likely never be worth more than it is at the moment one acquires it. (I was about to say "earns it" but that word does not well fit the current model of executives or enterprisers who are able to save anything in current conditions.)
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
You clearly have no idea how banks make money, do you? If they paid you 5% on your deposits and then lent your deposited money at 3% they’d go broke
N (B)
Having worked for a major player in the 2008 financial crisis and a TARP recipient, easing banking rules is a terrible idea.
LA Lawyer (Los Angeles)
We can now set up a pool to be on what year it will be 2008 all over again. No bitcoins, please.
Susan Anderson (Boston)
I have some numbers you would all pay attention to. They represent years that bad crashes happened under Republican deregulation: 2007-2008 (Bush) 1988 (Reagan) 1929 (Plutocracy and income inequality like today's) But we've never had an explosion like the current one at the casino on Wall Street. Along with climate change, which is just getting started, we are building up debts in hell here.
Larry (Left Chicago's High Taxes)
The 2007 meltdown occurred because Pelosi and Reid seized Congress. President Bush inherited the housing timebomb after Clinton forced banks to make loans to people everyone knew would never pay them back. Thankfully, President Bush was able to contain the Democrat damage and do the heavy lifting to get America back on track long before Obama seized power
Roy (NH)
Every finaqncial crisis in the past few decades has been the result of arcane and opaque financial instruments that were poorly understood and even more poorly regulated: the S&L Crisis, the derivatives crisis, the subprime crisis. Every time the need for regulation became clear, and then dwindled because "it's different this time." Except that it is never different. I can't say for certain whether the next crisis will come based on cryptocurrency, hedge funds, or some other arcane instrument used by the 1% to further widen the divide with the 99%, but it will happen -- and if regulations are relaxed, it will happen sooner rather than later.
Hu McCulloch (New York City)
Responsible insurors don't underwrite risks bigger than they can pay out. Perhaps the FDIC should limit its coverage to banks whose potential losses it can actually pay. For example, if an insured bank's losses were twice the FDIC's Bank Insurance Fund, their deposits would simply be paid 50 cents on the dollar. Banks that were thus Too Big to Insure (relative to the FDIC's ability to insure them) would then quickly lose depositors to mid-sized, fully insurable banks.
Augustus (Texas)
It can be difficult to tell a Democrat from a Republican. Politicians, like their constituents, are all over the map on many issues. No matter how much it is wished for, we do not live in a perfect world and judging people on the basis of their differences doesn't bear fruit. Realistically, we can't expect better and may not even deserve it. But the most pressing issue is stopping Trump, even if it means supporting candidates who fail to pass our personal litmus test. I'm a progressive and have been disappointed in the Democratic Party for a long time. But the only hope we have to returning the country to some sort of normalcy is to support the ones with the best chance of winning. The consequence of standing on principle at a time like this is to play into the Republican's divide and conquer strategy.
woofer (Seattle)
Providing some regulatory relief for smaller banks is defensible and could be traded for more funding and management stability at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. How about defining “systemically important financial institutions” as those above $100 billion in assets plus any smaller banks that actually accepted bailout funds.
Patricia Acosta (Arkansas)
As it seems likely this deregulation bill will pass in the near future, should the Democrats regain a majority come fall, the first bill they need to pass is one that will concretely prohibit the bailout of ANY financial institution, come what may.
In the long run, regulators are not going to be able to outthink lawyers who make multiples of what the regulators are earning. Instead, there needs to be a return to putting riskier financial activities into partnerships with unlimited liability. Nothing like putting all of your assets, including your home, at risk if you are not diligent. Otherwise, there is not enough downside for management. Instead, leaders will cut corners in pursuit of short-term profits.
Purity of (Essence)
Did anyone really think they were going to let the government close down the casino forever? Boom and bust, that's capitalism. The state can intervene to prevent busts, but if it does that, it will also prevent booms. And it's human nature to think short-term. People want their booms, they don't want to have to think about any busts. This is why our species is probably doomed.
Paul Thomas (Albany, Ny)
I absolutely don't like any of this. But, let's not take this out on the "Democratic party." It is not a monolithic, unthinking, rank-and-file party like the Republicans. It is so diverse: socialist, left, liberal, conservative, corporate, right-of-center are all incorporated within the Democratic party. The party lives up to its name (Democracy) while Republicans are an authoritarian party within a Democratic political system. Don't let the actions of some Democrats sway your opinion of the party - this is how the media forces many people to believe "both parties are the same." Voters unfortunately need to work harder at the Democratic primaries to make sure they vote for the best candidate (a true left-of-center candidate like Warren).
Mary (undefined)
This is one of those times when "Thanks, Obama!" is appropriate. The Obama admin had 8 years to break up the corrupt, dangerous giant conglomerates, like Bank of America, but did next to nothing. Those investment and commercial banksters didn't land in prison, they got rewarded. At the very least, there ought have been a sincere discussion about repeal of Gramm Leach Bliley and return to some form of Glass Steagall that the Gingrich GOP Congress shoveled through the embattled Clinton admin in the latter days of 1999. GLB is what established the platform for fraud and financial abuses in the unholy marriage between commercial banking with investment banking. Without Gramm Leach Bliley, there would have been no credit default swaps - no handing out of mortgages to those who couldn't afford them (guaranteed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), no packaging of those fraudulent, high fail mortgages destined for foreclosure, not selling them as investment globally to other countries and banking systems.
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
Both sides know there is another coming crash and some are already preparing to profit by it through insider trading trading. Those same politicians will no doubt bail these criminals out again as we fall one more step into poverty.
Dianne Friedman (Virginia)
Warner needs to be primaried if he continues to represent banks and financial institutions rather than the people of Virginia who are his constituents!
Rich D (Tucson, AZ)
We have seen this movie before, not long ago, and it was in the "horror" genre.
Bradley Bleck (Spokane, WA)
And people wonder why there was so much unhappiness with the Clinton nomination. Good lord.
c harris (Candler, NC)
The imagined El Dorado ahead falls into the heading of giving big finance everything they want and watching them party and celebrate on their way to buying luxuries. The plutocrats cannot not lose or can they? If the tax cuts don't lead to as much of a punch for everybody else in the economy. The fact that no major infrastructure program or meaningful improvement in the type of jobs for the rust belt workers who were hurt by technological and global factors and a big increase in the national debt, the voters will not see much of the great benefits promised. Especially if state and local gov'ts face shrinking funding and services. Domestic spending on the middle class may be threatened by R warnings that gov't cannot afford them. Something has to give. The Rs seem to think that supply side economics will not fail this time.
Ma (Atl)
Bottom line: Bring back Glass Steagall. Dodd-Frank was a joke of a 2000 page document that no one understood. Simple legislation, that's what we need. Neither party wants that, through.
Ruskin (Buffalo, NY)
The survival of both major parties is in doubt, imho. The GOP has shown us the worst kind of behavior; and now the Democrats are doing their usual best to avoid cohesion and principle at all costs. Starting new parties in our country is almost impossibly difficult, so we are stuck with figuring out ways to change at least one of the biggies into a party that cares about ordinary people.
James (Pittsburgh)
Who wrote the Dodd Frank bill? - the biggest banks!! and after the Bill was passed Who remained too big the fail the biggest banks except that they got even bigger. Since Dodd-Frank we have seen merger after merger of the small and medium size banks as they must become big enough to afford the costs of Compliance with Dodd- Frank. It was a bill that was supposed to make us less vulnerable to too big to fail bailouts but instead, because of all the consolidations it has engendered, has made the financial industry even more susceptible to the too big too fail repercussions. Dodd-Frank is an example of just doing something without reflecting on all the effects is often worse than doing nothing. The progressives who defend this bill know what they intended but not what they created.
HapinOregon (Southwest Corner of Oregon)
"Backers argue that the bill would offer much-needed relief to small banks and credit unions in parts of America that have been struggling under regulations that had primarily been aimed at the biggest banks." If, and I suspect that it's a very big IF, the above is true, the bill is supportable. If, however, it's just an attempt to get the camel's nose under the tent...
penny ann (kentucky)
Any cooperation with the republican's bid to loosen the banking regulations set in place by Barack Obama will make the democrats wish they'd thought a lot more about how angry we are. We trust Obama....we don NOT trust anyone in either party that supports undoing what that terrific president did will wish they'd never even thought of cooperating with the republicans at this time in our history! I've got two democratic organizations on my credit card....they get money ever month form me a retired school teacher. Not another dime Mark Warner it WILL split us up. Just what the other side wants.
Ray (Md)
Here we go again... fire up the economic and financial roller coaster. Hopefully it doesn't go off the tracks like last time.
Mike OD (Fl)
So it appears that the left is just as crooked as the right. It is time for a third party that actually has the convictions and honesty- key word- to tell those that have pockets bleeding money- OUR taken money- that that will not work anymore. It is way past time, and very probably too late to do so, to take our government back from the rich, the influence peddlers that work for them, and the sell outs that work for us(?). Oh. Sorry. It is too late. My error.
Phil Zaleon (Greensboro,NC)
This "reasonable sounding" collusion with Republicans is a core problem with some in the Democratic Party. While there may be some small justification for modification in banking regulation, this effort has an obvious Republican objective, to shred all safeguards so Wall Street will again be able to bankrupt the nation and stuff their own pockets, AGAIN! It beggars the imagination that after eight years of Republican intransigence to any reasonable legislation proposed during the Obama years, Democrats would now be accommodating an effort to undo any protections that keep us from the next Wall Street orchestrated financial abyss. It would be tactically and strategically better to wait until after the 2018 elections when "accommodation" would be required from the other side of the aisle.
Glennmr (Planet Earth)
I guess we can save money by cancelling all economic classes on the planet. We are supposed to learn from financial mistakes. The savings and loan crisis from the 80s and the housing/lending crisis from 2000s were directly related to overly deregulating markets. And now the GOP is saying: “let’s do it again as it was so much fun the last two times.” This continued debt increasing focus from republicans will ensure the next recession will have no cushion—i.e. lowering interest rates, tax incentives--for recovery. The next stress test could be a depression.
There's a fine balance between regulation and liability. Why should we be increasing liability in a near zero unemployment environment when economic growth is healthy? The time to loosen regulation is when risk is off. You don't need to regulate risk when nobody has anything to risk. The time to add regulation is when risk is on. It appears to be on now. It was wrong to over regulate risk when there was no risk and it's wrong to deregulate risk when there is plenty of it around.
citybumpkin (Earth)
I'm seeing a lot of false equivalence between parties here. While it's true that the Democrats supporting this bill should know better, one should keep in mind that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are opposed to this deregulation bill. In fact, it was a Democratic Congress and Democratic administration that imposed the regulations in the first place. Meanwhile, the only Republican dissenters are those who think the bill is still too strict. There is still a clear difference between the parties on the issue of banking regulation, just as there are on almost every issue. Saying "they're all the same" is simply, flat-out, factually wrong.
NYer (New York)
While well meaning and crucial for the too big to fail banks taking extraordinary risks with other peoples money, these rules put unnecessary burdens on small banks who then are simply unable to make mortgage loans to the everyday American based on those rules intransagence. One size does not fit all in the banking industry because the banking industry is no longer just the standard 'retail banking' of serving individuals with checking and savings and making mortgage, personal and business loans. Not enough money in that for the big banks is there? But that IS exactly what the smaller banks do and to handcuff them due to the sins of their greedy mutant cousins hurts the common person on the street completely unnecessarily. The big banks should be restricted in many ways, including what instruments they are allowed to buy and sell and invest in, and I dont know, call me crazy, but I would actually say that a $50,000,000,000 bank is indeed a B I G bank.
Sue (Cedar Grove, NC)
As a general contractor, I'm outraged the government can tell me how much weight a steel I-beam can hold. This is typical big government overreach, an onerous regulatory burden if ever there was one...until the bridge I'm building collapses because I used 8" beams instead of 12" which case its the government's fault for not properly inspecting and insuring a public project like this in the first place and clearly they need to pay to have it fixed as well as all the forthcoming lawsuits. (Sound familiar?)
mbenz (san francisco)
I am not someone completely opposed to deregulation or change and I am definitely not a Republican. So here's the thing, it's never discussed, how do they come up with the threshold figure? For example the tax bill 20%, settled at 21% from 39%, why not 30% that might have been a figure far less monstrous and yet a substantial reduction. How does the current $50 billion of assets for reporting, shortly and ultimately, get raised to institutions with assets of $250 billion or more why not $150 billion? Do I sound angry? I am angry that the citizens of our country paid the bail for the recklessness of Wall Street. And really what's that industry done for the average guy or gal with no pension, no 401k...maybe a savings account paying minimal interest?
Candlewick (Ubiquitous Drive)
List Every Democrat who is supporting this legislation. Voters have a right to know; and stop calling these folks "moderates."
Tony (New York)
Can't have that dreaded bipartisanship, or any difference of opinion.
Sudha Nair (Fremont, Ca)
This is not the time to give the banks more freedom to abuse their power over consumers. The laws were put in place to prevent the shameless abusive activities that brought the country to brink of collapse just a few years ago. Where is the backbone here among the politicians to stand up for the interests of the people vs. the crooked bankers? Instead of relaxing the rules, the bankers who led the companies to the financial meltdown should be punished seriously!
Chris (NYC)
Heitkamp also voted to confirm many Trump appointees, including Sessions, Pruitt and DeVos. She thinks that voting republican-lite will help her re-election chances but that tactic doesn't work. Remember these "moderate" democrats who obstructed Obama at every turn? Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Arlen Specter (he switched parties in 2009), Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad... None of them got reelected. "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time." - President Harry Truman
Rik Blumenthal (Alabama)
I thought bipartisan legislation used to mean a good idea.
citybumpkin (Earth)
Whew, good thing "populist" Donald Trump is here to put a stop to this and take on Wall Street. He's so rich, he doesn't need to be in the pocket of bankers, amirite? "The Trump administration has signaled its support of the Senate bill..." Oh...
David (oREGON)
We should get rid of all rules except one: If a bank damages the economy, we execute the board of directors and their families.
Mary (undefined)
No, the CEO, his c-suite, all the department heads and their vice presidents.
Sixofone (The Village)
I'll be watching which Dems vote for this bill and, if I have a chance, will vote against them next time they're up for re-election. A financial system that allows bailouts for banks but requires lax regulation and oversight is a capitalist system for suckers. Let's see just how many Democrat legislators think we're suckers. (We already know most Republican ones do.)
cf (new england)
This means we should get busy burying our money in coffee cans, in our backyards.
FDR Liberal (Sparks, NV)
It took until the 60s to begin to pull on the thread FDR's regulations against the banksters. It took another decade during Carter's administration to unravel some the regulations, Reagan put is on steroids and Clinton and Bush II almost gutted all of them. In each aforementioned decade, administration a financial crises ensued in each decade or administration. I wonder how long this one will take before we have another financial crises or hiccup in the 60s that caused liquidity and collateral issues?
citybumpkin (Earth)
I can understand differentiating small regional banks and credit unions from large national banks, but something is evidently awry when the bill will also lift restrictions from institutions that got taxpayer bailouts.
jnorton45 (Milwaukee, WI)
The market will move the risky money to banks with less regulatory oversight. The money always takes the path of least resistance, like a flash food. You've probably seen pictures lately of what happens when a flash flood comes through. If this reduction in regulation passes, don't put your money in a small bank.
Jack (Boston)
I disagree with Senator Warren on almost everything else, but she has this one right. No more bank investments that risk another collapse/bailout.
DSS (Ottawa)
The tighter the rules the better. Simply put, banks cannot be trusted.
Here comes the swamp!
Ruby (Texas)
I think it's time to start stuffing cash under my mattress. I want to be ready when the bottom drops out of the market again.
Rebecca (Sacramento)
Neo liberals continue to make compact with Confederate ideology. They are not moderates and the conservatives are not conservative. This is the rebel cry of, "the south will rise again". Their god is mammon.
Dave (New York)
The average American ...what a singular person that must be. He/She must subject themselves to loyally support idiocy from both political parties and at fairly regular intervals sacrifice their children and their economic well-being to smooth over the storms and havoc our capital aristocracy consistently create. Which country do "we" invade next? Which fraudulent schemes must "we" bail out? Which illegitimate candidates must "we" vote for ? This last election was beauty..Hillary Clinton and her warmongering ideas, mis-firing hubby, and bank sell-outs on one side and Trump's bigotry, warmongering, and propensity for insanity on the other. A rational country would at least have a national media that could keep honest tabs on who was who and who was doing what to whom. We're a long way from Tipperary. And very sorry about those war crimes folks but you know we gotta do what we gotta do even when we don't have any idea what that is.
AJB (Maryland)
Why on earth would the NYT choose a photo prominently featuring Elizabeth Warren, who strongly *opposes* the bill that's the subject of the article? The caption under the photo only muddles things more because it mentions Sen. Warren and Sen Heitkamp together, without ever making clear which one supports the bill and which one opposes it. Very confusing at best, misleading at worst. If the story's about moderate Dems who support a certain bill, then run a photo of those moderate Dems!
2-party system? No so much.
JB (Mo)
Here we go again! Regulation-bad. Free market-good! The difference this time is, when 2008 hits again, and it will, there is nobody in residence who is smart enough to bail us out. Trump? Mnuchin? Really? Laissez faire republicans create the conditions that inevitably lead to disaster and then democrats are called on to restore order.
Robert Marvos (Bend, Oregon)
Dodd- Frank was a poor substitute for the Glass-Steagall Act, most of it, repealed in 1999 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. The original Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking activities. If congress is serious about avoiding another banking crisis caused by highly risky bank behavior, prevent them from using deposiors' money for speculat. Re-install the original Glass-Steagall act.
OTB323 (New Jersey)
Giving banks more leeway to take risky actions will surely foster economic stability? Of course not. Only 10 years have elapsed since the nation's worst economic downtown since the Great Depression. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Curtis Hinsley (Sedona, AZ)
Shameful sellouts.
Bunk McNulty (Northampton MA)
There is only one Party: The Money Party.
Coffee Bean (Java)
Oftentimes it’s the local community banks that want to do just that, build communities. Be it rural America or the outskirts of town, this is where these types of banks and credit unions know their customers and can still build friendships, where every day is ‘casual Friday’. In today’s highly regulated day and age, in order for these small lenders to survive each must rely on meeting certain criteria. Being an Affordable Housing Lender – working with low-income individuals and families by utilizing government-backed down payment assistance programs to become first time homeowner’s is one HUGE hurdle in leaping over the burdensome regulations as a matter of keeping up with Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Because these smaller banks cannot afford to absorb a bad loan they sell it to a ‘too big to fail lender’. Working in the housing department of a national nonprofit to assist low-income individuals/families on their journey to become homeowner’s, I stress to each that owning a home is touted as ‘the American Dream’ but LIVE within your means NOT your dreams. The gov't cannot over regulate in order for individuals to succeed, that requires personal initiative yet we must each be allowed to fail for wont of trying.
Coffee Bean (Java)
W/Could someone PLEASE explain how the above APOLITICAL comment does NOT justify 'relaxing' the onerous Dodd-Frank regulations for the smaller local community banks and credit unions without going into some Socialist diatribe? I really would like another [valid] POV.
gene (fl)
Deregulate Wall Street Corporate Dems and you will have progressive primary challenges. When our economy crashes this time Wall Street and all their minions will burn.
Arthur (UK)
Why do we call these people who want to take away any protection the public has from rapacious bankers “moderates”. These are amoral extremists regardless of which party they are affiliated to.
cf (new england)
Who repealed the Glass/Steagall Act? Yup, the Dems/Clinton.
Joe (New York)
Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley, who cosponsored the act that overturned Glass-Steagall, were all Republicans. Republicans wrote and passed the bill. The shamelessly corrupt president who signed it, thinking it would help him avoid impeachment for having sex in the White House, and help his wife with political aspirations raise money from Wall Street, was Bill Clinton.
mary bardmess (camas wa)
Eyes on the Prize please. Let's win back Congress first and then help the smallest banks.
Georgia Lockwood (Kirkland, Washington)
I guess there's a lot of people in America that are slow learners. Did we not learn anything from the last crash?
SAM (Los Angeles)
If you are wrapping yourself in the supposed moral blanket the Democrats allegedly provide then its time to pay attention: with the two exceptions noted, our supposed saviors, the so-called bulwark against the meanie Trump monster are selling us all out because they stand for nothing worth a working persons time to donate to. Be warned: Democrats are not the friend of the worker, regardless of ethnicity or skin color.
lulu9er (california)
Here come the wolves. so hide your money or lose it.
John (Tuxedo Park)
What a splendid idea to give Dimon et al the tools to blow up the world again after which they will come whinging, hands out stretched, to be saved again.
Double Duece (Upper Penisula of Michigan)
I would consider myself moderate Republican/Democrat. However at my age 76 I do realize my memory is sometimes what it used to be when I was 70. Takes a little bite longer to remember trivial things from the past. I would say however for Democrats and Republicans to forget what happened in the 2007 Great Recession borders on premature Dementia. Ignorance, callus regard for their constituents or out right greed on their part are other reasons for this. Small local banks in my neck of the woods don't hold Billions in assets. It took several years to realize playing the slots at the local reservation casino had better odds than Derivatives. The local Tribal Chief is also a better money manager than our Congressman who is a retired General.
Technic Ally (Toronto)
Democrats seem to be acting in ways that will ensure they make no electoral gains in the future.
Greg (Seattle)
During the financial crisis in 2008, there was an investigation into the financial dealings of members of Congress. It turns out that many of them repeatedly wrote bad checks (illegal), defaulted on bank loans, got special terms on loans that were not available to the general public (unethical), mis-used public funds (a criminal act), and declared bankruptcy (financial mismanagement). All this goes to show that with the exception of Elizabeth Warren, most of these folks know NOTHING about financial management or financial risk. I'm not even sure half of them know how to balance their checkbooks. I don't know the true motivation of the Democrats who want to loosen the rules for banks, but maybe it'll translate into more contributions to their campaign coffers from the banks because it surely isn't being done for the benefit of we taxpayers.
Purple Patriot (Denver)
In American politics, money talks and politicians listen. No surprise there. The surprise is that for 8 years during the Obama administration, the broad public interest actually mattered.
Rick (New York, NY)
"The surprise is that for 8 years during the Obama administration, the broad public interest actually mattered." Sorry to burst your bubble, Purple Patriot, but many, many people would disagree with your assessment of President Obama's policies toward financial institutions - and they would be more likely to do so from the left than from the right. In terms of reform and policing of the financial system, Dodd-Frank was weak sauce at best. It did little if anything to curb the incentives of major financial institutions toward the types of behavior which led to the 2008 crash. And the Obama Administration's refusal to pursue any criminal prosecutions of any person or institution after the crash was even worse. Mark my words: one day, perhaps even in the next few years, there will be a financial crash which will dwarf 2008, and President Obama will have to take at least some share of the blame for that for his "slap-on-the-wrist" or even lighter treatment of the financial sector.
Purple Patriot (Denver)
I too was disappointed in the decision by the Obama administration not to prosecute Wall Street crooks very aggressively. I think the country needed that, but I recognize that the Obama administration had inherited a colossal mess consisting the Wall Street/banking collapse, burgeoning unemployment, a trillion dollar budget deficit, two unresolved wars, and a belligerent and unhelpful republican minority in congress. The most urgent problem was to address the millions of newly unemployed and to reinvigorate the economy to create jobs. It wasn't the time to go to war with the big banks and the GOP, so the prosecutions didn't happen. As it turned out, it was a mistake. The GOP soon chose to wage war on Obama anyway.
Caleb (Illinois)
2008 was a gigantic wakeup call. The policies of the Obama administration stabilized the situation without really correcting it. This time the financial abuses are even greater, the DOW is even more overpriced, and both major political parties, seemingly having learned nothing, are calling for more deregulation This time, there will not be a Great Recession. There will be an all-out Depression of at least 1930s magnitude.
Serious (Portland)
How about tying looser regulations to those who voted for such regulations? That is, when banks fail, all who voted for and signed off on the legislation -- and their families -- must make restitution to those who lost their savings and investments because of bank risk-taking.
Ranae1 (St. Paul, MN)
Exactly! Dodd-Frank was put there for a reason! Just look at how often Wells Fargo continues to mess up!
Curmudgeon74 (Bethesda)
Any government is caught between the political imperatives of respecting moral values and sustaining material prosperity. The stunning aspect of this debate is that the swing toward deregulation has gone so far as to be dramatically self-destructive, and corrosive of basic republican (lower case) and constitutional values that are critical to social cohesion. Krugman notes today that a majority of Republicans consider college a negative force in American society; at the same time Mr. Fink of BlackRock is urging companies to recognize their social responsibilities, especially as government defaults in varied areas. For 'default' you can read mindless deregulation and the privatization of a Congress dependent on donors. And you need look no further than the tax bill for dramatic confirmation. The CFPB is dedicated to transparent and genuinely competitive financial markets, and the GOP can't bear the consequences. The spectacle requires the renewal of basic values, not the disregard of the Trumpian administration.
JAB (Cali)
Are you ready for GD 2.0? There are bubbles e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e! I have no faith in this shorthanded, incompetent administration, to stop the flood gate once it starts.
Capt. Penny (Silicon Valley)
Every banking bill should start with the premise that it must result in personal responsibility including long prison sentences and huge personal fines for greedy banking execs, board members and staff. There should be no ambiguity that financial fraudsters could avoid prison, and even personal fines or loss of commissions, as they did after 2008. I'd also like to see CFPD given some teeth and funding to help consumers, but Mick Mulvaney is literally the fox in the henhouse who cannot be trusted. Having co-credited an online financial tech firm there are many honest ways to make very good money, but too many people in the financial industry are animated solely by greed, greed and more greed.
Donna Gray (Louisa, Va)
Many of in the financial community wouldn't touch CMOs and agree with you. However it was the Obama Justice Dept that failed. Like taking down major drug kingpins, you have to start at the bottom and work up, flipping for testimony along the way. That would have meant first charging those who signed up for 'liar loans' (but of course not imprisoning) to get testimony against their mortgage brokers. Those brokers could then have been forced to reveal documents from bankers authorizing those practices. They, in turn, could then have been flipped against the big wigs who signed off on what many of us knew were worthless loans. That was the work the Obama Justice Dept did not want to undertake!
Smotri (NYC)
I'm a registered Democrat, but haven't voted for any Democratic candidate since 2012. This kind of Democratic accommodation - among other things the Democrats do - is why.
Nathaniel (Astoria)
There's a reason why Democrats lose elections. They have so grotesquely fallen out of touch with the common people these regulations were set up to protect. We already have a party of Wall Street. Democrats need to change their ways or they will be replaced.
AR (Virginia)
Not just replaced, but driven to extinction. The 200th anniversary of the modern Democratic Party's founding is just ten years away, to be commemorated in January of 2028. There is good reason at this point to doubt that the party will even be around by then, if many of its members currently support corporation-friendly regulations ("deregulation" is a misnomer) for the financial services industry. I know Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic Party president, was a terrible human being in many ways. But his skepticism of the financial services industry was highly warranted.
Mel Farrell (NY)
Democrats will not change their ways, never. Same as the Republicans; both are wholly addicted to money and power, and both parties will be replaced, perhaps not during my few years left on the planet, but believe me they will be replaced.
Dawn Swink (St. Paul)
Wall Street has its own Party? No kidding? Which candidate ran on the Wall Street ticket for the last election? Trump, the Republican candidate, kept screaming that people shouldn’t vote for the Democrat candidate because “she was too close to Wall Street,” implying it was a bad thing.
CraigNY (New York)
The learning curve on financial regulation is . . . . flat. In the future there will be another 'unforeseeable" financial crisis that will again "socialize losses" of the banks by making taxpayers foot the bill, while in the intervening years the profits will all flow into the private hands of the wealthy and powerful. Here we go again.
Jack Toner (Oakland, CA)
I see little by way of attempting to actually understand the situation and a lot of knee-jerk reactions. I simply don't know if ten billion is the right level for the Volker rule to take effect. What percentage of overall deposits are in banks below the level. We're talking about deposits guaranteed by the tax payers, Maybe no bank should be allowed to play games with the money. Then we have the question of whether fifty billion is the right threshold for stress tests. I'd really like to see an in depth analysis and not just dueling rhetoric. It's certainly possible that Dodd-Frank place too much regulation on smaller banks. There is the fact that larger banks can more easily afford to deal with such regulation. But the Republicans have zero credibility on these issues. Are the moderate Dems backing these change because they really believe they'd remove unneeded pressure on smaller banks or do they feel a need to prove their moderate bona fides? Similar question for the progressives. Perhaps Professor Krugman will discuss these issues. Then we might see some light.
As long as there are no bailouts and no FDIC insurance for casino banks - have at it.
Marge Keller (Midwest)
I don't know about anyone else, but I personally WANT a bank that maintains certain elements of federal oversight, including stress tests, which measure a bank’s ability to withstand a severe economic downturn. The last thing the country needs are banks with "relaxed post-crisis rules and regulatory obligations". Good grief - have our law makers completely gone bonkers or has some mental disorder taken over their cognitive senses? The absolute debacle, chaos and ruin of so many families in 2008 was less than 10 years ago. How can that fall out be forgotten or dismissed . . . so soon or even at all?
John (Stowe, PA)
Giant tax cuts filling massive investment accounts...then remove the rules that stop another massive bubble and crash. Great thinking. Why would ANYONE sign on to this, especially a Democrat?
chuck ochs (East Bridgewater MA)
Here we go-again! How long before the greedy will collapse the financial system again? Given the current profitability of all things corporate, this makes NO sense. Another attempt by Repubs to give money away to those who, clearly, don't need or deserve it.
Steve Wheeler (Portland, Oregon)
Let me see... It's been almost ten years since we all had to bail out financial institutions that gambled on sub-prime loans, lost, and caused the Great Recession. Now the banking industry is having banner years and they want us to deregulate them because they have become more trustworthy? As I recall, not a single bank CEO went to jail, or even was indicted. I call on the Times to publish the names of the Democrats who are willing to enable a new round of risky business by the banking industry.
Susan (Patagonia)
It's hard to imagine anything more fool hearty than letting the financial industry off the leash.
Deb (Blue Ridge Mtns.)
No, No and NO. I am convinced the reason democrats got smacked in 2010 had quite a bit to do with the fact that the Obama administration did not go after the banks/wall street responsible for the meltdown that hurt so many. They got strongly worded statements and a little slap on the wrist along with their while the "little people" lost their homes, savings and sometimes jobs. You go along with this and sure as the sun rise, their will be another meltdown, and your fingerprints will be all over it. And it's just plain stupid if you think it's going to win you votes from either party - it won't.
AR (Virginia)
I guess Americans just can't be happy with the idea of a heavily regulated financial services industry that is downright boring, a la what exists in Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. That is one reason why the quality of life in America is so terrible by comparison. I wish more people could see the connection. Financial meltdowns make for great Michael Lewis novels and film adaptations, but not much else. They can and should be avoided at all costs.
JAB (Cali)
Are you ready for GD 2.0? There are bubbles e.v.e.r.y.w.h.e.r.e! I have no faith in this shorthanded, incompete administration, to stop the flood gate once it starts.
AR (Virginia)
"Are you ready for GD 2.0?" Well, the very wealthy are. They like economic booms, but they like busts even more. They don't really pay a price, don't end up destitute or homeless or without access to high quality, affordable health care. They just benefit from the sudden burst of disaster capitalism. Is living in America as a non-rich person really all that different from living as a non-rich person in Haiti?
JKM (Washington DC)
Maybe Senator Warner has somehow forgotten about his unexpectedly razor thin re-elect last time around. His inexplicable choice to deregulate the banking industry at this juncture is sufficient for me, and likely other left-leaning voters, to decline to vote for Mr. Warner again. I have very little patience for and even less inclination to continue supporting public officials who can't learn from the most obvious mistakes of the past. There are few brighter A-B lines in policymaking than the connection between previous salvos of banking deregulation and the exacerbation of intense boom-bust cycles that seem to hurt nearly everyone *except* for the people who are most responsible for creating the conditions that make bubbles out of natural economic growth, and depressions out of natural economic recessions.
mt (Portland OR)
I can understand your sentiment, but if he is not reelected, will the one replacing him be more progressive, or more likely, a republican? Will defeating Warner produce any serious gains for progressives, or merely be akin to not voting for the "lesser of two evils" that resulted in don t's election. Please respond.
JKM (Washington DC)
What is progressiveness? At minimum, I like to think that it represents a counterweight to the rampant, unfettered explosion of wealth inequality in our society. At some point, we all have to draw a line and make a subjective judgement as to whether or not the labels we identify with have a deeper, consistent meaning, or even a soul.
Farkle (Atlanta, GA)
When the middle class loses it economic power, the worst of America shows up: the Bankers, Wall Street and bought Politicians. The results caused by the Banks, the Bush's, Reagan, Clintons, Obama, and Senators and Representatives like Schumer, Frank, Hensarling, Dodd, Gingrich and Pelosi is Trump and the loss of the middle class! The Securities Act of 1933, Glass–Steagall Act and Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 should be combined into a constitutional amendment so the country can be removed from under the thumbs and feet of the banks who are killing democracy. And please don't say it is just the Republicans only, a large part of the Democrats (almost all) are part of this financial scam; they are in the middle of this on-going debacle and up to their necks in their own lies about bank deregulation.
Tyler (New Jersey)
Again, an article where "moderate" basically means "Wall Street Sellout". There is nothing "moderate" about being a puppet for big banks.
Jim Manis (Pennsylvania)
Anyone who thinks a Democrat (just like a Republican) can't be bought off is an even bigger fool than me. We are traveling towards another financial crisis.
deedee (New York, NY)
So someone tell me exactly why I should contribute to the DSS or the DNC? To fund the Heidi Heitkamps of this world who don't even stand up for what ought to be the most basic of the Democratic Party? NO! Don't even bother calling me. When we have the next financial meltdown, what will these senators say? Will they admit they were wrong? Of course not, and if they do, what will it be worth? What are THEY worth?
Kevin (Oakland)
How is this a partisan issue? The history and the facts bear out what happened before and what could prevent it from occurring again. If this is partisan, it is along the lines of approving the chances that another financial disaster will occur as opposed to taking steps to best prevent it from doing so. Unless the parties are now aligned between pragmatism as opposed to incurring undue risk on the US financial system to be assumed by taxpayers.
Casual Observer (Los Angeles)
This really is a situation that develops because humans while having enormous capacities because of their intelligent brains are predisposed to let the highly emotional parts of their brains dominate their choices. A short term gratification or a fabulous desirable possibility will be preferred despite the high probability that the real outcomes could be very disappointing. People in this irrational state of mind just cannot be convinced that the risks of undesired results must be considered as well as the desired possibilities. They just will not consider the situation rationally. When the big banks faced insolvency in 2008, the executives lamented that there were not adequate regulatory controls to save them from being so terribly over extended and were relieved that the Federal Government had come to the rescue. Within months they were complaining about the constraints which regulations placed upon them which forced them to reduce their risky behaviors because they could see profits being lost. That is the kind of behavior which Republicans and this group of Democrats simply refuse to confront honestly, that regulations which are effective in reducing the risks of bailouts are going to be seen as intolerably restrictive by bankers and large financial concerns, no matter how rational that they are.
Charles (Saint John, NB, Canada)
SO many bad political decisions! I fear it will dearly cost us all.
Beantownah (Boston)
This ill considered thicket of regulation - conceived by self-declared geniuses like Barney who never ran a bank or a business- have stifled growth among smaller banks. The big banks have plenty of bandwidth to pay for the expensive compliance costs of Dodd Frank and still thrive. Not smaller banks. This course correction is overdue, despite Liz Warren’s unwavering belief that more regulation always means better regulation.
Mgaudet (Louisiana )
More socializing the losses and privatizing the profits....
Grove (California)
Greed and corruption know no bounds, and in 2017, they are fully embraced in America.
kisum (Los Angeles)
This is golden opportunity to sell your house and cash out now before the new law goes into effect where you deed it directly over to a Goldman Sachs executive thus bypassing all that Big Government red tape.
Abbey Road (DE)
Corporate Democrats. Get rid of them and perhaps the party "of the people" can be that again. Sanders/Warren 2020.
JTK (New York)
"much-needed relief to small banks and credit unions in parts of America that have been struggling" = American Express???
Massimo Podrecca (Fort Lee)
And so the bubble grows
anne (bangladesh)
This is outrageous. We do not need deregulation. We need control and supervision of greedy and irresponsible Wall Streeters who under the previous two Administrations were allowed to destroy the economy and harm millions of hard working innocent people with zero consequences. Now this same crew of very stable geniuses wants greater freedom to express themselves. No! No! NO!!!
C. Whiting (Madison, WI)
What banking disaster? What climate change? What income gap? What nuclear nightmare? What groping? What racism? what lying? What, me worry? Wait, What cliff?
Allan (Syracuse, NY)
I find this infuriating! As a moderate Democrat, I supported both the Clintons--but I remember feeling really queasy when Glass-Steagall was repealed under Bill Clinton's watch. It seemed like a terrible idea at the time, and the Great Recession less than 10 years later seemed to confirm my worst fears. Why do our elected officials have such dangerously short memories? Oh, that's right: because there's a lot of short-term money to be made for their biggest donors, while risking the long-term economic future for all the rest of us.
ken Jay (Pasadena)
The banking industry is predatory. They are making more money than they ever have. They are subsidized by the government, the biggest beneficiaries of quantitative easing and low interest rates. High rate student loan rates are a calamity. I suspect they wrote the tax bill. All this gives them economic clout to insist they deserve more preferential treatment. This is expected from (hope they on the way out) Republicans, and I also hope Democrats who support this are on the way out as well.
Marie (Boston)
"The bill would allow hundreds of smaller banks to avoid certain elements of federal oversight, including stress tests..." "Under the bill, firms with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the so-called Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with federally-guaranteed deposits..." Wait - making risky bets with federally-guaranteed deposits? So tax payer-guaranteed. Funny - when I take a mortgage or a car loan the bank ,makes stipulations and requires me to get insurance but when they are playing with our money and our federal guarantee they want to be be free to risk it all? It would seem to me that smaller banks are at the greatest risk while the larger banks put the greatest amount of money at risk.
Occupy Government (Oakland)
Are there always more centrist Democrats than moderate Republicans? No wonder we're always moving to the right.
Rick (New York, NY)
Hey Democratic Party leadership? This is quite possibly Exhibit "A" for the argument, supported by many, that the two parties are essentially the same, are both corrupt and both serve corporate donors instead of the people as a whole. I know that you find this argument infuriating to the extreme, but it will persist and will continue to cost the Democratic Party winnable elections (by convincing a critical mass of voters to stay home) so long as prominent Democrats insist on acting like Republicans in important matters of policy. The only way that Senators Heitkamp, Tester, Donnelly and Warner can show that they are addressing a real need in the public interest, and are not simply kowtowing to Wall Street donors, is by publicly pointing out tangible, specific examples of how existing rules are hampering lending, business activity and growth in North Dakota, Montana, Indiana and/or Virginia, as the case may be. Anything short of that makes them look like nothing more than shills for the financial sector - and opens them up to potential primary challenges, whether this year (Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly) or in 2020 (Warner).
nom de guerre (Kirkwood, MO)
Forgot one- 4) Reinstate Glass-Steagal
mja (LA, Calif)
No doubt some money has changed hands. A little grease for the wheels, as they say.
arm19 (Paris/ny/cali/sea/miami/baltimore)
This is why the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. They rather cater to the corporations than to the poor. Banks don t need less rules they need more rules. Where is the regulation to curtail the abusive bank fees? To stop this continuous rip off of being charged at both ends when not using an atm that belongs to your bank? To protect the consumer from abusive practices a la wells fargo? God does America need a real left wing in the political arena.
nom de guerre (Kirkwood, MO)
1) Overturn Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC 2) Vote for local/state/federal candidates who support campaign finance laws 3) Reform gerrymandering
John Brews ..✅✅ (Reno NV)
If Dodd-Frank made sense before, it still does. Banks aren’t wiser or les duplicitous than before. If the GOP wants to set up the next crash - well, leave them responsible for it. Totally responsible!!
jaco (Nevada)
Problem is Dodd-Frank did not make sense.
citybumpkin (Earth)
"Totally responsible!!" But that's not how America works. This is a country where memories are short and facts count for nothing. Ask your average Republican voter who was responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown. They'll tell you it was Obama, whose policies magically caused the crash even before he was President.
SSC (Cambridge, MA)
Guess who will be bailing out the failed banks. Again? Could it be the taxpayers of Mexico right after they finish paying off an $18 billion border wall? I don't think so.
gboutin (Ringwood, NJ)
Forgot what happened in 2007 already?
gardensla (Los Angeles, CA)
Perhaps it's time to put the word "moderate" in quotes?
Joe (New York)
Expose them. Shame them. Throw them out on their ears.
David Lindsay Jr. (Hamden, CT)
Nonesense! "“A lot of what was Too Big To Fail under Dodd-Frank became ‘too small to succeed’ because of the onerous regulatory burdens,” Ms. Heitkamp said. Under the bill, firms with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the so-called Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with federally-guaranteed deposits. Mortgage rules for small lenders would also be eased." There is no good reason to let smaller banks abuse taxpayers, by taking huge casino risks, insured by the taxpayers.
James (St. Paul, MN.)
After our leaders failed to punish the criminals who nearly destroyed the world economy----and were subsequently bailed out at taxpayer expense, our elected officials have decided that we should try the same thing all over again. Further proof that Congress always serves financial institutions and their shareholder needs above those of everyday voting citizens.
Kevin McLin (California)
Maybe that's because everyday voting citizens don't hold them accountable.
Dobby's sock (US)
Funny all the Strum und Drang in the comments section, yet these same peeps were all ready to elect a bought and sold Wall Street maven and her VP pick Tim Kaine, who came out for deregulation, even before he got the nod from "she that must not be criticized". Glad to see eyes are open again.
Paul Thomas (Albany, Ny)
Whether we like it or not, Democrats encompass the entire political spectrum: left, socialist, right, center, center-right, etc. That's why they're so easy to divide, and have a tough time forming a message. The Republican party can count on all its members voting in a solid block because party leadership would punish their reelection chances.
Andy (Salt Lake City, Utah)
This is going to pass with or without Democrats. If crossing the aisle protects Democratic election chances in 2018 or 2020, let them do it. We don't need a more hostile Congress going forward. Sen. Warren's position is correct but you might as well salvage what you can from a bad situation. The question going forward is whether Democrats are actually allowed to negotiate on this legislation. If Republicans close the door again, Democrats should walk away. Let Republicans own the next melt down all by themselves. For that matter, an asset ceiling jump from $50 billion to $250 billion is absurd. You can relax that specific aspect of Dodd-Frank without going all the way to the wall. Senate Republicans need to dial back their expectations a bit or they're going to walk this path on their own.
Chris Gray (Chicago)
Stop protecting the corporate Democrats who support the banks over the people. It's not enough just to list the vulnerable Dems up for election in red states who might have a legitimate excuse. Half of the supporters come from blue states where this bad bill could be defeated. You list only Mark Warner. I know Tim Kaine is also behind this, which makes it a pretty good indicator of what we'd have seen if he'd have become vice-president.
Robert Kennedy (Dallas Texas)
It's hard to make an intelligent comment without knowing all the details. It may make sense to reduce regulations for small and medium banks. They did not cause the financial crisis - it was the "Too Big to Fail" megabanks that did this. If the legislation retains safeguards on these megabanks and Wall Street, then it may deserve consideration.
Rick (New York, NY)
I don't have a major problem with appropriately tailored regulatory relief for small banks. It would take at least 100 (if not a lot more) of them going under to come close to the economic impact of a Lehman Brothers going under. Of course, it is a virtual certainty that, in order to curry favor with the big banks and their large campaign contributions, the regulatory relief being proposed will NOT be appropriately tailored but will rather open the door to exploitation by the big banks as well. This article quite pointedly notes that both parties are in on this corruption. For that reason, I have come to the view that the only appropriate regulatory approach to the big banks is as follows: they can have their relaxation or even outright repeal of the rules that they consider onerous, on the express condition that if any of them get into financial trouble, the federal government will not give them a single penny of aid under any circumstances. No more bailouts, ever. If they're going to fail in the absence of a bailout, then let them fail. Yes, the collateral consequences would likely be drastic, but letting them fail is the only way to get the financial sector to get its house in order.
WalterZ (Ames, IA)
Can we have the NAMES of the Democrats who are "crossing Ms. Warren on the issue, [with] the hope that the fallout will be minimal."?
deedee (New York, NY)
Reread the article. The names are all there - Tester, Heitkamp, Donnelly, etc.
“This major move to deregulate the big banks is a major move to undermining Dodd-Frank,” Dodd-Frank is a result of an economic catastrophe that caused REAL and long lasting human suffering because of uncontrolled greed. The banking industry does not "suffer", ever. Making less money does not qualify as such. Their greed cannot be allowed to cause any more harm at the expense of the taxpayers. ANY change to D-F needs justification that is clearly a result of thorough and transparent review. The only ones who seem to be watching out for "We the People" on this one, are the progressives. The lack of any real detail concerns me in this article, so please keep us informed and provide more detail.
cf (new england)
This is a sign we will potentially soon be entering another financial collapse. Question is, will the banks be bailed out, once again, as Obama did last time around? I blame Obama and the Dems for not penalizing the banking industry after 2008. They ALL got off Scot free.
Jonathan (Oronoque)
The next financial collapse will be in the stock market, not banking. The banks will only be impacted indirectly, as their customers discover they are not as rich as they thought.
cf (new england)
Jonathan, Totally 100% agree.
kilika (Chicago)
This is exactly why I'm an Independent. The deems always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. I'm watching Senator Leahey (D)on TV -elected in 74' barely having the ability to question a H.S. Chief-on what happened in the White House. The GOP are taking over the country and the deems are playing identity politics. Good grief! Sadly, trump plays them all.
WmC (Lowertown, MN)
I have a very simple rule of thumb for evaluating financial regulations under consideration: Whatever Jamie Dimon wants, I don’t.
jaco (Nevada)
Good news! Dodd Frank is an example of "progressive" over-reach - neo Marxists attempting to take over large parts of the financial industry. As the piece illustrates, this creates barriers for smaller institutions - results in the oligarchy "progressives" pretend to despise.
David (San Jose, CA)
Well, that didn't take long - less than a decade to take advantage of short memories and a disengaged public. In just the third QUARTER of 2017, Bank of America's profit was $5.6 billion. Goldman Sachs made $2 billion. They need "relief"? From what? These folks will crash our economy again. Count on it.
samludu (wilton, ny)
This is the future economic scenario for America, because we know what happened in 2008: (1) Congress, with the help of so-called Democrats, will "relax" federal regulations on the financial industry. (2) Taking full advantage of this, the financial industry will go too far in capitalizing on this limited oversight, putting the entire economy at risk. (3) Banks and other financial institutions will fail, some will be on the verge of collapse, and the stock market will plummet. (4) Congress and the President will insist the only way to prevent another full-scale depression will be for Congress to bail out those institutions on the brink of failure. (5) The American people, especially the shrinking middle class, will foot the for this bailout. (6) No one responsible for the economic calamity caused by greed and malfeasance will go to jail. (7) Steps 1 through 6 will be repeated twenty years later, but only after a Democratic administration is forced to clean up the mess, which will include increasing regulations on the financial industry, which, of course, will later be "relaxed."
AliceWren (NYC)
My 30 years experience with the regs for federally charted credit unions, which are pretty much what the federally charted commercial banks live with, gives me some personal sympathy for the argument against financial regulations -- but not much. However, I would never allow the banks to use depositer's money to invest in derivatives, or any other investment, other than Treasury bonds and some types of consumer loans - with great care. As for the stress tests, a modified version for the smaller banks is a good idea. May I suggest a far simpler way to keep the banks for over-reaching and making stupid loans? Increase the percentage of assets that must be kept in reserves. Real reserves, not some sleight of hand. Take a look at the Canadian system, which did not suffer the losses and chaos in 2008/9 that our banking system did. The key difference is a greater amount of money kept on their books as reserves, with which the banks cannot play games. That, plus no investing in derivatives, keeping the deposits off limits for weird investments, and one could probably eliminate a few of the more irritating regs and still keep us safe. However, unless that reserve ratio is increased, count me out on changing Dodd-Frank and under no circumstances would I eliminate the Consumer Protection Bureau.
Casual Observe (Los Angeles)
In a book published after the crash, a former director of the FDIC pointed out that the biggest banks around the world do not provide reserves adequate to cover the big losses to which they are exposed. They don’t go out of business because governments bail them out. They see amounts in reserves as unproductive, and they convince governments to allow them to have reserves for small losses. American banks then complain about proposals to require higher reserves would make them uncompetitively, globally.
Mary (undefined)
This is the prescription that European banks now live under. They recovered quicker after 2008 and have a higher standard to meet on liquidity.
Jim (Houghton)
What is all this "relief" the banks need? Has anyone looked at their quarterly profits??
bbw50 (california)
I humbly suggest Congress must be forced to watch 'The Big Short' before voting to roll back financial regulations. Maybe that will jog their memories.
Michael Blazin (Dallas, TX)
Did anyone actually read the article? The change has to do with smaller banks, not the Wall Street megabanks. JP Morgan said it spent 600 million plus to meet the regulations. How much do you think it has cost much smaller banks? They do not have the profits to employ similar people. That is why it is getting Democratic support.
Mark (NY)
OK, weaken Dodd-Frank. When the next crash inevitably comes, do NOT bail out the banks and instead jail the bankers. Not too big to fail and not too rich to jail. Last time we paid for it out of our taxes and teachers and other public sector union workers were blamed for the crash. Not again. No way.
The Iconoclast (Oregon)
Moderate Democrats Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Senator Jon Tester of Montana, Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. Eleven Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring the bill, making its passage in the Senate likely. These so-called "Moderate Democrats" need a good talking to at the least. The talk would include a financial history lesson where they would be reminded that the banks took down our economy and damaged the world with their gambling using depositors money and nonexistent funds. Can they say CDO, and CDS? Can these senators say Derivatives? Do they even understand Derivatives? Author Michael Lewis wrote in his book The Big Short that a type of derivative called a credit default swap (CDS) enabled speculators to stack bets on the same mortgage securities. This is analogous to allowing many persons to buy insurance on the same house. Speculators that bought CDS protection were betting that significant mortgage security defaults would occur, while the sellers (such as AIG) bet they would not. An unlimited amount could be wagered on the same housing-related securities, provided buyers and sellers of the CDS could be found. When massive defaults occurred on underlying mortgage securities, companies like AIG that were selling CDS were unable to perform their side of the obligation and defaulted; U.S. taxpayers paid over $100 billion to global financial institutions to honor AIG obligations, generating considerable outrage.
gc (chicago)
It's so hard to read all of this anymore... is there anything that is bulletproof that will save us from the greedy people? Why bother with rules if the revolving political party door can undo them... this is insane...
Mary (undefined)
Vote differently, be careful whom you send to Congress. BOTH parties have had their snout stuck in the trough for decades, while Big Banking laughs all the way to, with elected officials reaping giant campaign contributions.
Council (Kansas)
I guess Wells Fargo will get an award for it's behavior! Regulation is bad, greed is good. The American way!
Brez (Spring Hill, TN)
So again, a few bought-and-paid-for Democrats will betray us to the bankster crooks like Jamie Dimon (who should be in prison) so they can drive us into another recession. I expect as much from the totally corrupt Republicans, but had hopes that even the so-called "moderates" would eschew the oligarchy.
Bill (Madison, Ct)
Wall street does have some democrats in their pocket.
bbe (new orleans)
Corruption and incompetence are not confined to just the Republican Party.
Bartolo (Central Virginia)
You mention that eleven other Senate Dems are co-sponsors of this hideous bill. Besides Warner, can I assume that my other weak-kneed Senator is also on board?
Bigsister (New York)
As long as there are big bucks to be made who cares if John and Jane Q. Public will be left holding the bag when the inevitable crisis/scandal occurs.
aboutface (tropical equator)
What are these Democrats paid and by who to support less rigorous oversights?
Art (Baja Arizona)
Just goes to show that the Democratic Party is bought and paid for too.
Marie (Boston)
Or - more accurately and inclusively: Just goes to show that the Republican Party is bought and paid for and some Democrats too.
Clearwater (Oregon)
OK here's my new deregulation: No more bailouts, ever. Now do you banks want to proceed with your Trumpian casino games?
Silence Dogood (Texas)
Here we go again. Why can't these lawmakers remember where we were in 2008-2009 and the causes of that financial calamity? Perhaps if their retirement income was threatened, or the livelihood of their aging parents or children was at risk, then maybe they could do the right thing. Do people just get stupid and shortsighted when they move the Washington, D.C.?
jimsr (san francisco)
progressives are not moderates? LOL thank you
M. Noone (Virginia)
Pander, democrats, pander! Show why it is you can't win elections! Show why it is that you don't even deserve to win elections! Prove that the non-voting populous is absolutely correct in not giving a hoot about who represents them because both parties are inherently made up of corrupt sleazeballs who don't care one iota about the people! Prove that 2018 is a pipe dream for naive optimists who think that progressives are gonna swoop in and save the day from the bad guys! I can't wait to not vote for Mark Warner again because the only thing worse than a republican is a fake democrat who votes like a republican!
Cindy Barry (Maryland)
Don't do it, Dems!
eof (TX)
Neoliberals and neoconservatives are cut from the same cloth when it comes to further empowering the wealthy. We would do well to remember that 'Democrat' and 'progressive' are not synonyms.
MK (Midwest)
Addie asked why the NYT didn't publish a list of co-sponsors of the bill. Here's the list of Democratic co-sponsors: Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Jon Tester (D-MT) Mark Warner (D-VA) Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Joe Manchin (D-WV) Tim Kaine (D-VA) Gary Peters (D-MI) Michael Bennet (D-CO) Christopher Coons (D-DE) Thomas Carper (D-DE) It's Senate bill 2155, the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act" Consistent with his record, HRC's VP choice Tim Kaine is on the list.
JS (Oakland, CA)
Thank you! Will pass this along on Twitter and Facebook etc. and urge others to do the same. Disgraceful of the NYT to omit this information!
Marie (Boston)
Virginia and Delaware. Gee, I wonder why?
GvN (Long Island, NY)
Hm, are these par chance Democrats from States that will profit most from a growing financial industry?
NYT, can we have the names of the 11 Democrats supporting this prominently displayed?
Steve Beck (Middlebury, VT)
Everything in AmeriKa can be described with ONE word. MONEY.
arm19 (Paris/ny/cali/sea/miami/baltimore)
nope GREED
Steve Beck (Middlebury, VT)
Money. Greed. Just different sides of the same coin!
Ted (Portland)
This just confirms what many of us have been saying all along: both parties are in the pocket of Wall Street, that was amply demonstrated during the last administration(but I would not put the blame on President Obama, rather on those surrounding him such as Schumer and the Clintonites)that chose to bail out banks rather than citizens and special interests who benefit from continual war, the cost of which in both humanitarian terms as well as fiscal terms that have disallowed spending on things that would have a benefit to developed societies both here and abroad as countries are overwhelmed with fallout from Middle East Wars and globalization, the whole system is corrupt and in need of a revamping before things get any uglier.
Julie (Portland)
State Banks, investing our borrowed money in the community is the answer. Why are we not talking about that anymore. I worked on it here in Oregon but no where because of big banks. As a consumer when will I get to borrow money at the same rate as corporate conglomerates? no I have to pay 8/9% or 16 % on credit cards. Will I now get a decent return on my savings. It has been since the early 90's or late 80's that CD rates were 6%, after Wall Street took over all life and the real estate market.
Mike L (NY)
What is scary is the sheer size of some of the banks now. They are so big that they literally do not feel they have to abide by the law. I had accounts with JP Morgan Chase for 20 years and I had to go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 3 times to recoup hundreds of dollars in illegal bank fees that Chase had charged me for an overdraft account. And then Chase just kept doing it! So I finally switched all my accounts to a smaller internet bank who has treated me great and not charged me illegal fees. Use your power as a consumer to choose which companies to do business with.
nom de guerre (Kirkwood, MO)
MIke L, Join a local credit union.
Peter Peterson (London)
Love the way Trump comes up with "We're looking at Dodd-Frank very strongly and I think..." He *thinks*. Like he's even read it. But that serious tone make it sound like he understands the issues, right? He hasn't the first idea. Dodd Frank still only requires banks to have capital ratios of 8%. Many economists argue they should be much higher. The US should still be paying reparations to the rest of the world for the last economic crisis. It is not time to start playing dice with the next one.
njglea (Seattle)
The article says, "the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have now set their sights on helping the financial industry..." Oh, yes, the poor little banking industry needs help. What a scam that WE THE PEOPLE are going to have to pay for. Please, Senator Warren, keep up the good fight. The Con Don and his Robber Baron friends plan to heap insult upon insult on us while they try to destroy OUR government and lives. This may be one step too far. The lynch mobs are forming.
Nyalman (NYC)
About what you would expect from a corrupt system that pays politicians millions of dollars for "speeches" that the politician then refuses to release transcripts for (yes I am talking about you Ms. HRC!).
Ted Ricks (Oregon)
No doubt in the sweep to regulate risky banking practices covered by FDIC there was overreach by the regulations, particularly of local and regional banks. However, the consumer has to be protected from risky investments, low capital to debt ratios, and injurious lending practices regardless of the size of the bank. Let's hope that our government holds all banks to those standards in this era without the Glass-Steagall Act.
Angry (The Barricades)
I love that the banks (and telecom and manufacturing) are all railing against these regulations, saying they hurt economic and job growth while the economy is running at full tilt with essentially full employment. Do they think we're not paying attention?
Banks and lenders primarily take advantage of people who don’t understand what they are getting into, which often includes those living beyond their means. A personal finance class including making and living on a budget, savings and retirement, loans and contracts, etc. should be mandatory for every high school student in this country. Until then we will continue to release ill-prepared young people into a financial climate that preys on them and does all it can to perpetuate the cycle of profitable debt throughout their lives, starting with their first college loan application.
Stefan (Berlin)
I think we have all learned by now that the banks are not led by ethics, there's no moral and they accept no responsibility. Only thing that keeps them reasonably decent is regulations and oversight.
Paul Thomas (Albany, Ny)
Another example of how we live in a plutocracy, instead of a democracy. The veneer of Democracy is maintained so we are not protesting in the streets.
Casual Observer (Los Angeles)
Congress should maintain constraints upon financial institutions which inhibit them from irrational risk management that leads to bailouts, especially when they demand such limits be reduced. Every dollar that banks cannot use to invest in financial markets or lend are dollars not producing profits. However, the risks of losses due to markets downturns or borrowers failing to repay are empirical, what has actually occurred and will likely occur again. Short term poor outcomes are easy to handle because they happen so often that the motivation to avoid them by rational decision making produces no conflict with other expectations. But when it comes to infrequent poor outcomes the decision making becomes irrational when the short term returns are great, even though the poor outcomes would be ruinous, greed overcomes caution. That’s why there are regulations which compel rational decision making. The price of removing regulations is the much stated but misunderstood situation called too big to fail, which is the scenario where the poor outcomes effects are not limited to the banks who did not address the risks but to the whole economy.
TLeGras (Cayucos)
The Dodd Frank act does need revision. We went from a open spiggot on lending prior to 2008 to overly onerous Laws. I personally have been impacted - I have a credits score of over 800 and have never been late on a payment in 40 years. Prior to 2008 I could qualify for a reasonable loan . . . . since then I have been turned down for even a basic credit card . . . . This cannot be good. Yes, we do need the regulations to be stronger than 2008, but not so strong that the money flow is choked to death.
DofG (Chicago, IL)
If we are operating in an economic system that is, without question, inconsistent with the Laws of the Universe, how can we we possibly deregulate ourselves to prosperity? In fact, it is this obsession with deregulation, which always benefits the banks at the expense of the people, that invalidates capitalism as a system but more a power matrix that must continue to manufacture the consent of the very people it robs. Of course this is ultimately self defeating.
Bam Boozler (Worcester, MA)
Banks that want to avoid regulation will simply split into several smaller entities. Smells like a recipe for another financial crisis...
Rick Spanier (Tucson)
“Were going to agree to disagree,” said Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat who sits on the banking committee. “I don’t think this is going to split open the kind of unity you’ve seen in the Democratic Party.” Warner, clearly a presidential wannabe if conditions appear safe enough to announce his candidacy, clearly does not understand the currents within his own party and the general electorate. The unity we've seen in his party? Really? What I see is a rebellion of voters against the party apparatus and a movement to replace its tired and bland centrist candidates with younger, more energetic novices raising awareness and funding outside of the fragile party apparatus. If there is anything to be learned from the South Carolina victory, the party needs to understand and act on what an angry Charles Barkley told them: we Black voters you have abandoned for decades just put you over the top in electing Doug Jones. It is time to stand and deliver or return to the status quo of losing without a fight. Barkley threw down the gauntlet, not simply for Black voters in the south but for all voters the party has ignored in search of largesse from the same industry some like Warner are openly courting.
Marcus Brant (Canada)
The Dow, already at a record level preceding the 2008 crash, is today approximately 2.5 times that particular value. Deregulation caused that crash with its associated agonies. What will this one do? Deregulation might be one thing if a responsible hand was at the helm. Instead, it's the same tragic crowd that presided over 2008 still in charge. It's not deregulation we need; its more. These clowns need to be reined in if they can't be replaced. My own corporation for which I have laboured for two decades is vastly overpriced. The management regime liquidated hard assets into cash and, on paper, is presently worth more than Goldman Sachs. Now, an air of desperation hangs over the company: Labour unrest is looming. As soon as it kicks in, the veneer of profitability will be stripped away and I fear another venerable company will cease to be, 20,000 employees bilked of billions. Capitalism is cannibalistic. It depends on winners and losers, and winners take all. The trouble is, too few people are equipped or positioned to be winners, only those insulated by monolithic wealth.
Deus (Toronto)
AND when the crash happens, once again, who has to clean up the mess and will ANY of the bloodsuckers go to jail?
Steve Crouse (CT)
Cannibals are the winners, he reminds us everyday.
Pajaritomt (New Mexico)
Let's put out the doormat welcoming another financial crisis! Lots of bankers got even richer during the last one and nobody went to jail. Ordinary people lost their homes, their jobs, their lively hoods, but those are the little people. I am appalled that that even Democrats are supporting weaking Dodd-Frank, including Mark Warner. I am appalled. And, by the way, my credit union is doing just, fine even growing, but my small community bank went broke because it made too many risky loans to risky businesses in the community. Then they lied to the SEC about the number of risky loans. For my taste, we don't need to weaken Dodd Frank, we need to hire more bank inspectors so we can enforce Dodd-Frank's rules.
Tony B (Sarasota)
Great- because bankers are not greedy, money obsessed people who will gladly drive the economy over the cliff while suffering no personal consequences. How about putting Canadian bankers in charge of the US banking system if you want adult behavior?
Jonathan (Oronoque)
Look, even in 2001-2008, many banks in the US did not make unwise loans. Large banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, US Bank did not participate in the subprime debacle, along with many smaller community based banks. They continued to require substantial down payments on mortgages, along with proof of ability to make the payments. Unfortunately, those who did destroyed the financial system for everyone.
G. Sears (Johnson City, Tenn.)
Not one substantive word in this piece about why the DF regulatory provisions are considered be so onerous. How about some credible information on actual impacts verses just broad generalizations and the usual platitudes? As for the trend of push back and the Trump administrations monkey wrench tactics, that looks awfully like greasing the skids for another deep dive into the financial debacle rabbit hole.
Jonathan (Oronoque)
I suggest you read pages 18-31 of the linked Dimon shareholder letter, He explains why CCAR is confusing to banks, why there are too many regulators regulating the same thing in different ways, why mortgage servicing regulations force servicers to reject many sound mortgages, why capital rules are preventing banks from making sound loans, etc, etc. You may not agree with everything he says, but he knows the regs and he knows the industry.
Jim (Houghton)
He sure does. JP Morgan Chase, his company, had over $25 BILLION in revenues in the last quarter of 2017. I think he's doing fine, and if a little redundant and inconvenient (spare me the "confusing") regulation protects the rest of the world from what we had to go through last decade, then I'm okay with that.
Nyalman (NYC)
Thank you Jonathan for pointing out a link was in the article containing this information.
Richard P. Kavey (Cazenovia NY)
Lack of banking regulation brought us 2008-2009. Thank Republicans and lobbyist cash drunk legislators of both parties.
Check Reality vs Tooth Fairy (In the Snow)
So, how'd that Bush era deregulation work out. What was the global...the global effect of US bank deregulation. Remind me again about who paid that tab?
Souvik (Long Island)
Typo found: Many House Republicans could find it difficult to back a bill that leaves the bureau unscathed, but weakening it has almost not chance in the Senate.
george eliot (annapolis, md)
"....helping the financial industry, which has been engaged in a quiet but concerted push to relax many post-crisis rules and regulatory obligations...." Read "buying off the criminals in the Congress with campaign contributions."
Craig Mason (Spokane, WA)
Here is why Hillary lost to Trump's (now abandoned) economic populism. Democrats sold out long ago (which is why they stopped Bernie, whose sincere economic populism would have beaten Trump's insincere version). In a pre-Fox world, Hillary would have been the Republican running against Bernie as the Democrat. A re-alignment is surely coming in which the lunatics of the right are pinched out, the kleptocratic enablers end up in one party, and the economic populists in another.
Dobby's sock (US)
Note, Tim Kaine, Ms. Clintons pick for VP, was/is pushing for deregulations for criminal enterprises of Wall Street. Even before she gave him the nod as VP pick.
RW (Seattle)
As if the banks are hurting right now...
Xoxarle (Tampa)
US Banks are small children utterly lacking in self restraint. They need effective parenting (regulation) to avoid periodic financial meltdowns caused by their recklessness. Canada has effective regulatory oversight. That’s why no Canadian banks needed bailouts in 2008. Unfortunately for us US taxpayers, our political leaders are corrupt and suffer from short term memory loss. Thus the cycle of boom and bust is fated to endlessly repeat, harming everyone except bankers themselves, who never have to worry about the threat of incarceration for crimes of fraud, money laundering, theft, tax avoidance etc.
William Lazarus (Oakland CA)
This drive to undo the rules that now keep our banks in check apparently now is joined by some 'conservative' Democrats. What's conservative about trying to re-open our financial system to the forces of greed-now, collapse-later?
Leslie Duval (New Jersey)
It's all about the Volker Rule....why is it "unduly burdensome" to prevent banks under the capital threshold from gambling with government insured money? This is exactly how to start ANOTHER failure, leaving taxpayers to bailout banks while the gamblers get away with it. If banks want to engage it these riskier investments, then also remove any protection from the US Government...there must be no further gambling insurance offered by the Government. If there is a swamp, then Congress must look at this one before allowing that behavior...again.
Nyalman (NYC)
Senator Warren will always have reservations.
Mel Farrell (NY)
Look, unless the NY Times or other widely read mainstream media exposes this effort, for what it is, a full page piece listing Democrats siding with the Republicans, and the amount of "donations" to each of them over the years, unless this occurs, the banks will win, and the people will be left holding nothing, zilch, zero. People are generally apathetic, plodding along, hoping for some little contentment in their arduous lives. The media is key to turning this corporate owned government around, but they will not do it, given the reality their own corporate fortunes are inextricably tied to this government. They may nip at the masters' hand, but biting it will never happen.
Samuel Spade (Huntsville, al)
The failure of this democracy to learn, thanks to gutless, career driven politicians. In other words the masters of delay and do-nothing will win out as if the Bush market crash never existed. The Volcker rules were just a temporary holding pattern till the big money boys got back to the status quo as if nothing had happened. The only banking rule that ever made sense was the Glass-Steagal Law that kept illegal stock market bets with other peoples money out of legal banking.
Bella (The city different)
The masters of spin are at it again. With regulations in place, we have had many years of good growth in our economy since the last recession, but some of our representatives in government have unhappy sponsors that do not like the rules set forth. These wealthy people and institutions could not care less about the 'other' people who seem to always be the scapegoats that end up paying for the mistakes made. Democrats need to remember who will put them back in power and it is not going to be anyone who is wanting to loosen up regulations. How quickly we forget when times are good and we all of a sudden think they could be so much better 'if only'.
Woof (NY)
To understand what is going on, follow the money. Below are the top ten campaign contributors to Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY), the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate Top contributors , Charles E Schumer, 2011 - 2016, Campaign Committee & Leadership PAC Combined: 1 Paul, Weiss et al 2 Deloitte LLP 3 PricewaterhouseCoopers 4 Lockheed Martin 5 NorPAC 6 KPMG LLP 7 Citigroup Inc 8 Blackstone Group 9 New York Life Insurance 10 Lazard Lt The Democratic party used to be a party supported by Unions and small donations. It has been taken over by the financial elite on Wall Street. Data
Mel Farrell (NY)
Thank you for the link.
Jomo (San Diego)
By definition, a list of 10 largest contributors is not going to include the small donators.
Ross (Vermont)
The reason they can do this is that they do not fear their constituents. They need to be thrown out of office and replaced with people with who represent the voters and not the banks and corporations.
William Joseph (Canada)
I understand why the Republicans want to rush things through since they may not have the power to after November but why would any Democrats not wait until at least then to support anything like this? The only answer that I can come up with is that they're looking for their own big banking donors for that same election and willing to risk the economy to get them.
R.C. Repetto (Amherst, MA)
The main difference between the two parties is that Republicans in Congress are completely controlled by the moneyed interests and the Democrats pretend not to be.
John (Portland)
Let's make no mistake, the GOP is always for deregulation and is fine with people suffering, losing money, being weakened to take better advantage of. The few democrats that are ok with this reminds us that the democrat party is not a "true" opposition party. The U.S. sadly has no opposition to big money.
TroutMaskReplica (Black Earth, Wi)
Why doesn't anyone ever demand or offer solid evidence of how businesses of any type are "struggling" because of regulations? Why doesn't anyone demand a demonstrated cause-and-effect? Why do we always have to passively accept these sorts of bromides as legitimate and strong arguments for changing policy? When are failing and "struggling" businesses -- first and foremost financial firms -- themselves going to be held responsible for their lack of success, rather than assigning the blame to someone or something else? It's just amazing how these people and organizations are able to drum up a giant "pass" from Congress, the press, and the general public. "Backers argue that the bill would offer much-needed relief to small banks and credit unions in parts of America that have been struggling under regulations that had primarily been aimed at the biggest banks."
papakim (Boston)
We gotta put pressure on Dems like Warner Heitkamp to explain their votes. So frustrating that we can't count on Democrats to hold the line on Wall Street reform. And this is another example of why I won't contribute to committees like DSCC and DCCC. I don't want my money going to Democrats who roll over for lobbyists and corporate donors. No backbone. I pick and chose my Democrats and there's plenty of weak knees in this Party. When we are striking laws that literally require retirement fund managers to act in the best interest of their client, something is very wrong. Glad Warren is forcing these tough votes. Time for a few phones to Washington to keep our electeds honest; it's a full time job.
Etienne (Los Angeles)
Any Democrat today who is supporting the loosening of banking regulations needs to be investigated to see where their political funding comes from. I can't call these people "Moderate Democrats", I call them "handmaidens" of Wall Street and the banks. It is incredible to me that the lessons supposedly learned after the catastrophic collapse of a few years ago are so quickly forgotten. This is a story that begs for deep media attention.
mancuroc (rochester)
I'm not surprised that the Republicans favor rich people and corporations in the their legislation - that's what they do. And the Democrats at least stuck together and opposed the tax bill. So now, out of the (political) blue, comes this headline: "Democrats Add Momentum to G.O.P. Push to Loosen Banking Rules" Are Dems like Heitkamp and Warner crazy? Didn't they learn anything from the past? There's more at stake for the Dems than merely "agreeing to disagree". Do they really want the nation sleepwalking back to 2008? Or 1929? I
tbs (detroit)
Suppose it depends on what one thinks the purpose of a bank is. If the purpose is to maximize profits, then regulations designed to protect depositors and the commonweal are a negative. Seems today maximizing profits is the only reason for a business to exist. This notion is of course folly and leads to structural collapse.
Dave (Florida)
Great, so now the banks can continue where they left off in 2008!
John Eller (Des Moines)
These are NOT “moderate Democrats.” These politicians are colluding with Republicans in a way that will place our economy and the world’s in more danger - closer to how it was in 2007. If they persist in this direction, they might well scuttle the chances of Democrats retaking either the House or the Senate in 2018 as they leave the base of the Party feeling that there’s no point to being involved.
Yuri Asian (Bay Area)
What's going on here -- besides politicians for sale kowtowing to Wall Street, billionaires, and banks too corrupt to fail? I don't get it. Banks, billionaires (who increased their wealth by $1 trillion last year) investors, venture capitalists have made profits hand over fist since they were bailed out by taxpayers and subject to all the financial regulations, oversight and accountability that they're now trying to kill. They made a financial killing -- UNDER REGULATION and with aggressive public intervention to stabilize financial markets in 2008. Do they think there's even greater profits to be had if they were once again footloose and fancy free gambling with other peoples' money with impunity? They've already gorged themselves playing by the rules. If rules no longer rule do they think they stuff themselves until comatose? Is this the higher purpose that poisons empathy and mocks decency that bankers and their minions serve? They'd like once again to play financial Russian Roulette with a gun pointed at our heads -- freestyle. No referees, No rules. No record. Great for Trump's shady bank deals denominated in rubles. Are they at all acquainted with the Third Deadly Sin, Greed? Do they get that Gordon Gecko is a fictional movie villain, not a real life role model and not Ayn Rand's godchild? And it's "What would JC do?" Not JP Morgan. How much more wealth can they hoard? These greed addicts need a life-changing intervention. Like jail.
John M (Ohio)
Small institutions have been crying the blues about regs. Trump and his friends cannot get loans, and its holding down growth.... Will Republicans take credit for the next way, they are simply setting the Dems up for the fall
R. Law (Texas)
This entire article reads like some farcical piece from The Onion, but this particularly sticks out: "Under the bill, firms with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from the so-called Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with federally-guaranteed deposits. Mortgage rules for small lenders would also be eased." Lifting restrictions on bankers' abilities to make 'risky bets with federally-guaranteed deposits' ! What could possibly go wrong ?
betty durso (philly area)
Do we really want another recession like 2008? The usual suspects who turned our financial system into the wild west are back with a vengeance under Trump. Democrtic senators, will campaign cash always win out over your integrity? You can surely see that Dodd-Frank was needed and should have been stronger. It was meant to defend us from the oligarchs gambling away our taxpayer dollars. America is not its oligarchs. We are the people, middle class and poor. And we are being jerked around yet again. Our only weapon is our vote. Must we now vote out the Democratic senators who weaken Dodd-Frank?
Sisko24 (metro New York)
Yes, vote out ANY senator or representative who votes to weaken Dodd-Frank.
We all know when the economy collapses, the bankers will make sure they get bailed out first.
Kat (IL)
Privatized profit, socialized loss.
For corporations, yes. For everyone else, their loss is their problem.
Jay David (NM)
Here we go again. Another Republican "plan" to add TRILLIONS to the deficit.
Vesuviano (Altadena, California)
What was it Yogi Berra said? "It's deja vu all over again."
Phillip Parkerson (Santa Cruz, Bolivia)
For the plutocracy, the GOP is Plan A and the Demos are Plan B. The difference between the two is like Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
Anine (Olympia)
If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Majority of the Democratic party is concerned with the policy that promotes the common good . Majority of the GOP creates policy to enrich white people. Each party has a few detractors, but you have to see the bigger picture.
Bill (Madison, Ct)
Don't lump all democrats in that bundle.
Steve's Weave - Green Classifieds (Boston)
Those who forget the past... are condemned to bail out the future.
JJ (Chicago)
Elizabeth Warren to the rescue. Those Dems supporting this better watch out....
DebinOregon (Oregon)
Especially because J Dimon and those yuge banks have been pushing hard for this. Why? Because it eases onerous regs on small banks only? Give me a break. Gut wrenching that Congress can prioritize this, right? This is so important they must must must fix it right away! Infrastructure? Meh.
Paul Thomas (Albany, Ny)
Punishing poor and working-class people (cuts in Medicaid, student loans, Pell, housing assistance) and rewarding corporate fraud. That seems to be the governing philosophy in Washington now.
Gabriela Arena (Texas)
The reason those regulations are in placed is to PROTECT the consumer!!!
DRSi (New York)
It’s pathetic how the left has been programmed “regulation good, deregulation bad” and has been stripped of any desire to understand the complexity and side effects for a more reasoned view. Some regulations work well. Others don’t. Some have well understood side effects. Some should be repealed, some replaced, some remain. The fact that so many here reduce this to a black and white issue shows their utter ignorance and arrogance.
James K. Lowden (Maine)
Actually, it's you who is oversimplifying. Pablum about some regulations being bad and good adds nothing to the discussion. Of course that's true. What does that tell us about the legislation? You seem to assume there's some kind of careful vetting of Dodd-Frank, some careful excision of its excesses. The evidence? Au contraire. Repealing the Volker rule lets banks invest FDIC-insured funds in speculation, without restriction. As another commenter pointed out, that's a classic example of privatizing profits and socializing risks. Note well, not one bank has failed since Dodd-Frank passed. The law didn't put any bank out of business. In fact, banks are profitable. But, as far as the banks are concerned, not profitable enough. So banks are pushing Republicans and Schumer Democrats to roll back the regulation. And why not? After all, failing was good business! By and large the financial industry was bailed out. If you're not willing to look at the specifics, don't blame "the left" for knee-jerk reactions and a preternatural preference for regulation. At least be a little skeptical about what any regulated industry says is good regulation. Bankers don't have the economy or your best interests in mind.
Peter Peterson (London)
So, go ahead. Explain to us how lowering the banks capital ratios makes them safer and benefits the consumer. In your own time.
Bill (Madison, Ct)
And the republicans and banks think all regulations are bad. The left understands and remembers the harm that de regulation can cause. You seem to have a short memory. We won't talk about your ignorance.
Dominic (Astoria, NY)
I can expect this kind of push from Republicans. After all, they work primarily on behalf of the 1%, corporate interests, and the financial industry, but for this to come with Democratic support makes my blood boil. Were these Democratic senators asleep in 2008? Did they not see the catastrophic damage that crash caused to millions of innocent Americans? Do they not realize that for most of us the 2008 recession hasn't ended? And now, they want to loosen necessary oversight and rules to ease the financial industry back into the casino. Are they insane, or just corrupt? More to the point, why give a victory to a racist, sadistic President who will only rub it in our faces? Some "resistance".
Art (Baja Arizona)
To answer your question, yes they are corrupt.
Ian MacFarlane (Philadelphia)
Why bother with a D or an R when an M (for money) is most appropriate?
RDG (Cincinnati)
These "moderate" Democrats appear to qualify for Talleyrand's comment when the Bourbons retook the French throne after Napoleon was gone: “They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
Deus (Toronto)
Once again, I would check to see who is on the list of corporate donors for these so-called moderate democrats.
D. O. Miller (Tulia, Texas)
Moderate Democrats have not learned from the past. It is nice that they want to be re-elected. In the end, they are selling their constituents out to the corporatists. Plain and simple.
Addie (Apparently the Moon )
Does the article really not flat out list all the Democrats supporting this?
MK (Midwest)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN) Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Jon Tester (D-MT) Mark Warner (D-VA) Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Joe Manchin (D-WV) Tim Kaine (D-VA) Gary Peters (D-MI) Michael Bennet (D-CO) Christopher Coons (D-DE) Thomas Carper (D-DE) It's Senate bill 2155, the "Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act"
Jeff S. (Huntington Woods, MI)
When Senator Warner says, “Were going to agree to disagree. I don’t think this is going to split open the kind of unity you’ve seen in the Democratic Party.” he and the 10 other Democratic co-sponsors reveal their own lack of understanding of where the country is, where the Democratic voters are, and the lack of unity...not between Bernie supports and Hillary supporters but between people and elites within the Beltway. Opposition to Trump is a starting point, and these Senators fail even that basic test. Instead of tacking rightward again, it's time to move left for our common greater good. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. "
SLBvt (Vt)
This is why people (even Dems) lose confidence in their party and their government.
Eric (Los Angeles)
Democrats continue to lose the narrative of working class America, preferring it seems instead to cater to the banking and finance industry. This is how lying hucksters like Trump who claim to renew that narrative of the working class can oppose Democrats and win at the polls. Either the Democratic Party regains the narrative by becoming the party that actually works on policies that protect the poor, low wage, and middle class in this country—let the Republican Party become known as the party for banks and billionaires—or they will never be relevant again.
citybumpkin (Earth)
Well, wait a minute. The Republican Party always whole-heartedly embraced deregulation and still won big at the polls. The Trump administration is quoted as supporting the deregulation bill. Are there mass defections among his supporters at this announcement? The only time people started posting videos of themselves burning their red MAGA hats on social media was when Trump said he was willing to make a deal to maintain DACA. Maybe it's not really all about that "economic anxiety" after all.
Jonathan (Ann Arbor, MI)
I'm fine with all this; just don't bail them out with our tax revenue. And while you're at it stop paying them interest on their Federal Reserve holdings. I've moved all my savings and banking to a community bank that serves the needs of the community in an honest way, a member of the ICBA (independent community bankers of America). It's time we give money back to George Bailey and stop supporting Mr. Potter.
Jason Shapiro (Santa Fe , NM)
Some Democrats conveniently forget that the Republican agenda rests on two fundamentally related pillars. The first pillar is simple, the system of unrestrained greed – grab as much as you can before anyone else can get anything at all. The second pillar involves the privatization of profits and the socialization of costs, and is very 19th century-pre Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism. Today’s Republicans want to eliminate all regulations on every business and industry so that they can act in any manner they wish, while at the same time eliminating their responsibility for the pollution – industrial and financial – that they spread throughout society.
Patrick Lovell (Park City, Utah)
Community banks are not the same as TBTF. They did not create the crises nor did they benefit from TARP and QE. This story, as is the broader story, lacking significant detail and context that would inform the public rather that confuse us.
Nora M (New England)
Fools! This is the "make or break year" because the Republicans will not be able to cram this through if either house of Congress flips to the Democrats in November. It won't split the unity of the Dems? Who is this person kidding? The Democratic Party is already in deep division between the Clinton wing (Warner, Heitkemp, Schumer and friends) and the Progressive wing (Warren, Sanders, Brown, Markey, Whitehouse and others). By the time they are done, the party may not be strong enough to elect a dog catcher.
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
Lois Lettini (Arlington, TX)
I am beginning to think that U.S. Capitalism, or maybe just Capitalism, period is EVIL!!!
Michael Darrow (NYC)
Save Dodd-Frank.
Farkle (Atlanta, GA)
Bring back Glass-Steagall and get rid Dodd-Frank; Dodd-Frank is a joke!!!!!
Charlie (NJ)
Why not have moderates from both parties take a look at Dodd Frank and consider whether there are elements to reconsider? I'm not seeing an effort to deregulate. I'm seeing a push to consider where the current law may have gone further than necessary. That's what we elect our legislators to do. Not what Elizabeth Warren does --"I will continue to challenge supporters of this bill — from both parties — to explain why they stand on the side of big banks instead of working families,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren". Uncompromising, divisive, preferring to paint the picture that says this is about helping Wall Street which must be bad for working families. She is the left's answer to Tea Party.
John Eller (Des Moines)
Few in the country are in a better position to know better than Senator Warren the meaning and dangers of what is exactly a degeneration of regulation. She knows exactly what she is talking about and approaches the question with ethical and knowledgeable seriousness.
CF (Massachusetts)
I agree with John Eller. Ms. Warren is an expert in this area, few know more than her. Trump, instead of leaving her CFPB intact, chose instead to put at the head a person who expressly wants to neuter it. This ought to tell you a little something about divisiveness. If you're not seeing an effort to deregulate, study the issue a little harder. Hint, if you get this overwhelming urge to buy bank stocks, maybe it's because they're going to make out like bandits.
bill (NYC)
Yeah our economy sure is damaged, Mr. Dimon. Why does anyone take bankers and lobbyists seriously after they either didn't see the disaster coming in 2008, or did see it and did nothing to stop it?
Jonathan (Oronoque)
Well, Dimon did see the disaster coming, and got JPM out of subprime before the crisis. That's why JPM made money every single quarter in 2008 and 2009, while other banks were going broke. His detailed critique of the regulations in the linked Shareholder Letter, pages 17-31, is quite good:
Kathryn Meyer (Carolina Shores, NC)
Elizabeth Warren is the only Senator that consistently speaks out on the dangers of this. All else seem to have amnesia. We cannot afford to bail out Wall Street again and the recent tax cuts are a sure march to financial ruin for this country. As the song says, "when will they ever learn?"
DJB (California)
How about a rule that increases the reserve requirements on all banks one percentage point for every bank failure. And increase every bank's insurance fee every time any bank fails. This sort of regulation makes the system safer for every bank.
Frank Greathouse (Fort Myers fl)
Deregulation, limited stress tests, slowed examinations of the high rollers that crashed the economy on top or a trillion and a half in tax cuts for Dimon, Wells Fargo et al? Say goodbye to your retirement.
Orator1 (Grand Blanc,mi)
Congress should keep their meddling out of it — banks and financial institutions need outside regulation to hopefully prevent what happened in 2008. I guess none of these so called, "representatives," ever learn anything from past history.
Mel Farrell (NY)
They learn that the American people forget very quickly, so at every opportunity they go for the jugular, and one of these days they will bleed us out, never learning the only important lesson, which is that their greed will upend the applecart, sooner than later, affecting the world at large, far worse than 2008. Pure stupidity.
Alex Kent (Westchester)
Dodd-Frank generally is a good statute. However, removing many of its restrictions on small banks is sensible. Those banks did not bring the world financial system to the brink of ruin. Focusing on the biggest banks is the correct thing to do.
Paul (Brooklyn)
The issue is more nuanced. The Dodd Frank bill is both too restrictive and too loose. The dems will over reach and put unneeded restrictions on smaller banks but overlooked the biggest problem that created the 2007 meltdown, the ending of Glass Steagall, ie where banks like Citi, Chase etc. are too big too fail so we have to bail them out.
Ted (Pennsylvania)
It's open season again on widows, orphans, and other vulnerable investors.
erk (usa)
11/2018 can not come soon enough. Dodd Frank was put in place for a reason, Trump and the GOP are going too far with regulations and the people of this country are going to suffer for it.
Dorian's Truth (NY. NY)
After going through a period in which the country was on the verge of economic disaster we are headed there again. When will we learn from our mistakes?
Mel Farrell (NY)
Ah, here we go again; the avaricious Democratic party, figuring their constituents attention is so focused on their Republican tormentors, are sneakily throwing their support to the Republicans, in trying to loosen and eventually undo any and all regulation, especially banking regulation. And this tool, Mark Warner, has the temerity to open his salivating mouth, and spout some drivel - "Were going to agree to disagree,” said Senator Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat who sits on the banking committee. “I don’t think this is going to split open the kind of unity you’ve seen in the Democratic Party.”" I'll be monitoring, very closely, how Warren and Sanders handle this ...
cherrylog754 (Atlanta, GA)
So the regulations on banking that were put in place to help prevent another financial meltdown, will be done away with for the vast majority of banks. Just great, and bipartisan to boot. So when the "2008 Redux" happens again, and it will, where will all these astute politicians be? You bet, in their cushy little lobbying jobs hounding Congress to bail out their banking clients. Never ends does it?
Douglas Johnston (Raleigh NC)
What's in it for Democrats? Just another one-sided deal. Real compromise is a two-way street.
Bruce Rozenblit (Kansas City, MO)
The banks were healed by the taxpayer. Not only did we bail them out, the Federal Reserve supplied fantastic sums of money to the banks at 0% interest which they promptly used to buy US Treasuries that paid around 3%, risk free. The profits generated were used to recapitalize them. Then the Fed implemented quantitative easing where it bought up government securities which kept interest rates super low. The banks then gave us credit cards with 27% interest rates and paid us 0.01% on our savings, 10 years running. Time to make a deal for the people. If we are going to deregulate the banks again and put the people's money at risk again, then do something for the people. Mandate a guaranteed 3% interest rate on savings accounts in exchange for the deregulations. At least this way, we get some benefit while the Wall Street big shots are making millions. If deregulation is so wonderful, then the people should get to reap some of the profits before they blow the world up again.
Terri Smith (Usa)
If Congress had passed a needed massive infrastructure bill the QE would not have been needed, our infrastructure woukd be repaired, good jobs would be plentiful, economy would be humming. But Republicans couldn't let full recovery happen on a Democrat presidential watch. It would foil thier future election prospects and fully debunk their supply side claims once and for all.
mancuroc (rochester)
Older readers may remember when, before deregulation, banks offered 5% on common or garden savings accounts. I mentioned this to a bank employee not long ago when renewing a CD for some measly interest rate and it was news to her that such a thing was possible. I guess the banks threw it down some memory hole. Anything to force reluctant investors tp risk their savings on the stock market; and I would say they are more at risk now than any recent time, including 2008.
John M (Oakland CA)
Deregulation is like crystal meth: it feels good for a while, but is fatal in the long run. Why are we even considering this?
Nora M (New England)
We are considering this because no bankers were held accountable in 2008, and they made out like bandits from it. They are far richer now than they were in the first decade of this century. You take a lot of risk and other people suffer for it. What's not to like? Thank you Barack Obama for allowing them all to walk away from the mess they created free as a bird! They should pay you big bucks for being so helpful.
PaulB67 (Charlotte)
Here we go again. Wouldn’t it be helpful, and revealing, if there were actual data to show how banks are suffering due to Dodd-Franks? Right now, financial institutions of all sizes are rolling in money, fat and happy. So how has D-F impaired their business? The answer is that banks can rake in even more profits when they take on riskier loans, which is how the 2008 meltdown came about. And, of course, they want the government to cover their losses when risky bets go awry. Here’s the formula the banks are lobbying: more risk, no downsize exposure equals even higher profits. Banks win! Banks win! Banks win! Taxpayers lose.
Bob in Pennsyltucky (Pennsylvania)
Somehow there must be a number between $50 Billion & $250 Billion that would make sense. My sense is that the only way to prevent a repeat of "too big to fail" is write the law so that the bank executives are at risk of jail time & financial ruin if they allow the level of institutional risk rise to a level that requires the taxpayers to step in. Andrew Ross Sorkin's book clearly shows that easy money with little in the way of consequences lead to willful ignorance and was the primary cause of the Great Recession.
cuyahogacat (northfield, ohio)
Personal responsibility for executives: Who would have thought that?
Kathleen Flacy (Texas)
The purpose of incorporation is to shield individuals from personal liability when the company, as a legal-fiction "person," fails or engages in illegal/unethical activity. NB our current White House occupant, whose multiple bankruptcies left him walking away with cash in his pocket while leaving his investors, workers, and suppliers holding the bag.
Gluscabi (Dartmouth, MA)
Greed never takes a holiday, and we're looking at a Christmas morning for banks, if once again Congress green-lights them to make risky bets with other people's money. Should the law pass it will signal beginning of the beginning of the end of the recent meteoric rise in stock prices and economic optimism. The end is not near, but by succumbing to greed Congress will have pulled out all the stops and set the downhill slide inexorably in motion.
Justin Fitch (Columbus, Ohio)
The bill that is working its way through the Senate was brokered primarily by Senator Mike Crapo, the Idaho Republican who chairs the banking committee, and moderate Democrats such as Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Senator Jon Tester of Montana, Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. Eleven Senate Democrats are co-sponsoring the bill, making its passage in the Senate likely. Who are the other seven Democrats co-sponsoring the bill?
Nora M (New England)
Those are not "moderate" Democrats; they are traitors to their constituents. To be fair, they probably consider the bankers who pay for their campaigns to their true constituents. Get rid of them.
betty durso (philly area)
to Justin, 5 of them are J. manchin, C. McCaskill, T. Kaine, Gary Peters and Angus King (King is not a D). I don't know who the others are. But we are taking names.
MK (Midwest)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Joe Manchin (D-WV) Tim Kaine (D-VA) Gary Peters (D-MI) Michael Bennet (D-CO) Christopher Coons (D-DE) Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Peter (Upstate New York)
The removal of the Volker rule from the smallest banks is an invitation to repeat the mistakes of the Savings and Loan Crisis, when individuals bought banks and basically used their depositors' money to make risky investments, knowing that the FDIC would bail them out.
Eero (East End)
Actually, at that time FSLIC insured S&L deposits. But you are right, this will not end well.
Peter (Upstate New York)
You're right. Sorry for the confusion.
Michael McAllister (NYC)
Where is a media establishment with courage to interrogate the financial interests of the renegade Democrats who would favor such risky business? Such office-holders are hostages or stooges for Big Banking. They are on puppet strings, lining up for a big payday every election cycle, and a super big pay day if they ever leave office. What a smell.
Rita (Maryland)
Congressmen need to be recuse themselves from voting on bills that benefit them beyond some threshold level. Has all the earmarks of Corker Kickback.
PaulB67 (Charlotte)
I think it is more a case of Republicans playing political hardball by putting moderate Democrats who are up for re-election in 2018 between a rock and a hard place. By and large, they are from red states, and their hold on their seat is precarious. The GOP is timing this plot to, in effect, blackmail vulnerable Democratic senators. If they vote for easing up on regulations, they are likely to lose Democratic votes. If they vote against easing regulations, the Republican propaganda machine will launch a full-scale assault, blaming the Democrats for ruining small business, wrecking the economy, and threatening world peace. They will also use photos and video clips of Hillary to further demagogue the issue.
Charles Pack (Red Bank, NJ)
I am tired of democrats who have neither the memory or the knowledge to understand why the regulations were needed in the first place. We keep repeating history in finance, civil rights, environment/energy and foreign affairs.
Nora M (New England)
You got to hand it to the Dems for consistency. They can pull defeat from the jaws of nearly assured victory every time! Don't just vote Republicans out of office. Get rid of the DINOs at the same time. Teddy, FDR, and LBJ are rolling in their graves!
cardoso (miami)
True the new measures promoted to control the potential repeat of the financial crisis proposed during Obama was the minimum that could be done after Glass Segall ceased to be in effect in collaboration of Republicans and endorsed by President Clinton .... the people opining against new rules are not informed on the history of regulations that protected the structure of Financial institutions and their customers. The Momentary Control Act of 1980 also sought to improve an even playing field. it is inconceivable that the Housing crash had existed otherwise. With all of these overseeing bodies Comptroller of the Currency FDIC and Federal Reserve and SEC and Federal Home Loan regulating markets and financial institutions And no consumer protection.
CF (Massachusetts)
I'm tired of Republicans who will never admit that Wells Fargo ripped off too many consumers by signing them up for all sorts of financial instruments without their knowledge just to meet company "quotas." Bitpartisanship would be in evidence if Republicans acknowledged the value of Warren's CFPB. But, Republicans lie about its effectiveness and are in the process of destroying it. Having Mr. "it's a sick, sad, joke" Mulvaney in charge is basically neutering it. Leaving the CFPB in the Senate bill as a sop is meaningless. I'm starting to feel a little mean now. Many of those financially illiterate people who got taken by Wells Fargo probably voted for Trump. They can reap their reward now. The banks can fleece stupid Americans with my blessing, in the end it will mean more money for people who own bank stocks. People like me.
See also