In response to the regulatory proposals taking shape in recent months, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has offered little resistance to proposals that the Fed cede its responsibility for protecting consumers to a new agency. But Bernanke views the Fed's role in supervising banks as core to its mission and has pressed that point with lawmakers.

The Securities and Exchange Commission would gain the long-sought power to fund itself by assessing fees on the financial industry, a change designed to alleviate chronic shortfalls.

leave my bonus alone

The Dodd bill also would place the Federal Reserve more firmly under the thumb of the administration. The Board of Governors in Washington is appointed by the president, but the 12 regional reserve banks, which implement policy, are private companies with boards chosen by their owners -- the commercial banks in each region. Those boards would now be appointed by the Board of Governors, and the chairmen of those boards would require Senate confirmation.

but the 12 regional reserve banks, which implement policy, are private companies with boards chosen by their owners

no more fox watching the hen house

Its a start! The audit would be great. Good going Dodd, and I don't even like you.

Dodd is clearly afraid of Peter Schiff. However, his record is very clear...and there is nowhere to hide.

This is a system similar to what they have in England and it really did not help them with the problems everyone faced in the past year. I see this as I see the Healthcare bill and Cap and Tax. Just another grab at control. They do not like it that the Fed is independent and want to put it under their control.

"Just another grab at control. They do not like it that the Fed is independent and want to put it under their control."

Who is they. This is Congress, the Legislative Branch exerting its Constitutional authority over a body created by their own branch. It is a bit ridiculous that a group of bankers, unaccountable to virtually anyone, have been able to virtually control the American economy and under the watchful eye of Greenspan, fuck it up royally.
And no, the British did not do the same things we did in response to the crisis, they nationalized the banks they bailed out, the taxpayers have equity shares not just broken promises of repayment while banksters divvy up the spoils among the employees.

So they are proposing a sleight of hand to look at this hand because they will move it to another hand.

And nothing changes.

They just want to increase gov't by creating more bureaucracy for what?

To stop the derivative swaps and insurance fraud??

They are not addressing the policies that lead to the meltdown in September 2008.

It's a lot of busy work to pretend they are doing something important--when they are not.

I don't trust Dodd. When public pressure makes Washington uncomfortable, they'll pretend to do something, but nothing ever changes.

I don't trust Dodd. When public pressure makes Washington uncomfortable, they'll pretend to do something, but nothing ever changes.

#9 | Posted by Ray

I tend to like your comments like this one Ray as long as you stay away from gold and the stock market

"
So they are proposing a sleight of hand to look at this hand because they will move it to another hand.

And nothing changes."

It is real change. It takes the control away from a small group of men in a private meeting and gives it to 535 elected Representatives and Senators. Who do you think is more accountable to you, Fed. Reserve Presidents or your Congressman?
Your job is much more important to your Congressman than it is to a non-elected, wealthy banker. This would be significant change.

"Who is they. This is Congress, the Legislative Branch exerting its Constitutional authority over a body created by their own branch."

This is brilliant.

Let's let the Congress print all the money they want to pay for all their pork. Absolutely no restraints or counter balances.

It worked so well for the Wiemar Republic, and many other examples

The only job the fed should do is monetary policy, on a short leash.
Personal opinion is the charter should be rescinded as unconstitutional.

As it clearly has been since day 1.

Your job is much more important to your Congressman than it is to a non-elected, wealthy banker.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-12 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

What a tool.

The only job your Congressman cares about, Danni, is his fucking job.

You think he gives a flying fuck about you?

Are you stoned, or just stupid?

"It is real change. It takes the control away from a small group of men in a private meeting and gives it to 535 elected Representatives and Senators. Who do you think is more accountable to you, Fed. Reserve Presidents or your Congressman?"

What percentage of those 535 even have a clue about monetary policy? We all have seen Congress in action recently when they wrote the bailout, and saw their incompetence regrading bonuses. Not to mention the millions of campaign dollars to the likes of Dodd and Schumer after we bailed them out. No surprise you want something else handed to the whack jobs like Pelosi and Reid...

One question is: who do you want with the power over ultimate money creation?--- Barney Flank and congress (what a joke)-- you think you have corruption (fannie mae, etc.), patronage, illicit money creation, etc. now ----- or do you want the fed continuing to screw up? The real question is why not reform the whole system and get rid of the fed with no substitute (like congress) and get back to a true market place ultimately based on some standard.

So since lack of sufficient sensible regulation got us in this mess, lets go back to the days when there was no regulation at all? Boom and Bust Big time! Yea!

The Federal Reverse: End it, don't mend it!

Dodd is just trying to cover his dirty ass. He is one of the people to blame for our economic troubles. We don't forget about that.

#11-----"it is real change"--Danni, sometimes, you make some sense but you've got to be kidding me. Sure this is change but to place this under these guys that have screwed up I can't think of anything more ridiculous----Dodd is just trying to get the idiot voters that put him in office back in his camp and doesn't give a rat's rearend about what something like this would do in the future if we have any future left.

#10----Ray looks pretty good on the gold trade but not yet right on the stock market.

How would you like the power to print money? Does it make sense that only in the USA that power is 80% privately held?

What is needed is a new school of economics, not corrupted by bullshit free market ideology, to lead the Federal Reserve and Treasury.

It is inexcusable that at this point in time Bernanke, Geithner, and Summers have any say in policy. Their policies are destroying this country after taking down other parts of the world. They represent bullshit, and at this point its bad for everyone, even the rich, even themselves. Of course, the suffering is always disproportionately born by the poor.

Why don't the rightie tighties talk about BofA, Countrywide, Goldman-Sachs, Morgan-Stanley, Merrill-Lynch.....they are much more the heart of the problem than Barney Frank for Christ's sake. Deflecting the entire problem on him shows you are unable to prioritize.

Dodd is just trying to cover his dirty ass. He is one of the people to blame for our economic troubles. We don't forget about that.

#19 | Posted by member2586 at 2009-11-12 10:41 AM |

Imagine how many hearings and committee investigations they would hold if they controlled the Fed? Laughable to think they could regulate themselves.

Nice attempt by Dobb to deflect blame for the financial meltdown to the Fed.

It is real change. It takes the control away from a small group of men in a private meeting and gives it to 535 elected Representatives and Senators.

Who have a track record of....

Danni really is an idiot.

#22--- You're right, it was the whole system: congress, the fed and wallstreet.

Nice attempt by Dobb to deflect blame for the financial meltdown to the Fed.

Uh...they ARE to blame.

Who have a track record of....

Danni really is an idiot.

Who cares about their track record? This is how it was outlined in the Constitution. It's the way it should be.

while anytime someone in dc wants to take control form something that SEEMS to be out of control like the fed could be a good thing.
the problem is of course, what they replace it with.
is there ANYONE who really thinks another government department is an answer.
How about LESS federal departments?

I have to laugh when I see all the same people who bitched about the fed now lining up to defend it.

How about LESS federal departments?

exactly! more deregulation! it has worked so great so far!

nothing makes the right wing on this site happier then bombing brown people...

anything else isn't good enough for them.

why don't yall just admit you hate america?

Deflecting the entire problem on him shows you are unable to prioritize.

#22 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-11-12 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag

Oh they can prioritize. Their priority is place all the blame on the Democrats in a futile effort to regain the power they squandered.

nothing makes the right wing on this site happier then bombing brown people...

anything else isn't good enough for them.

why don't yall just admit you hate america?

#32 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-12 11:48 AM

What the hell do "brown people" Dodd and the Fed have to do with anything?

726

dont you see what dodds is doing.
he is taking an issue that a lot of americans of both sides have taken stands against.

its a poltical move to try and shore up his numbers.
little more EXCEPT another govt pipeline to further enslaving the middle class.

now it we could just get rid of the dept.of energy.what do they do ?

well its a FACT according to the tenth amendment that the dept of education has been and will be unconstitutional...

so who knows about energy?

It is real change. It takes the control away from a small group of men in a private meeting and gives it to 535 elected Representatives and Senators. Who do you think is more accountable to you, Fed. Reserve Presidents or your Congressman?
Your job is much more important to your Congressman than it is to a non-elected, wealthy banker. This would be significant change.

Yeah I'm gonna have to say I don't trust the legislature to make better decisions.

The legislature is only very fractionally more accountable to me.

Mostly what matters when the day is done is can they raise more money than the person running against them in the next election.

That is not to say we don't have some great Senators and Congressmen. It's the classic case where an individual is smart but people as a whole are stupid.

While I agree that the fed has too much power, let's not pretend that Dodd is advocating smaller government. He just wants another branch of government to have the power.

"Yeah I'm gonna have to say I don't trust the legislature to make better decisions"

translation... i don't trust the system of government created by our forefathers.

While I agree that the fed has too much power, let's not pretend that Dodd is advocating smaller government. He just wants another branch of government to have the power.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2009-

just wanted to post it again.
right on

system of government created by our forefathers.

#40 | Posted by klifferd at 2009-11-12 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

GOOD FOR YOU

do you have the same idea as I do
that the forefathers would not recognize OBAMAS america???????????

I would agree with this line IF the govt now was like the one they wanted and IM reading about now in the book

AMERICA...the last best hope..
its really good but it also shows that we are STILL fighting about some of the same things that jefferson and hamilton and adams all fought over.

"Yeah I'm gonna have to say I don't trust the legislature to make better decisions"

translation... i don't trust the system of government created by our forefathers.

Your translation is accurate, sir.

Specifically we need reform in the way representation is handled. Political science has advanced significantly in this regard in the past couple centuries.

Republic is a good idea, democracy is a good idea, winner-take-all is a bad idea. A duopoly is little better than a monopoly.

Though, since our forefathers (in a figurative sense, my literal forefathers were of different extraction) gave us a mechanism to amend our Constitution, there is hope. The problem is, neither party will support election/representation reform since they only stand to lose.

Nice attempt by Dobb to deflect blame for the financial meltdown to the Fed.

Uh...they ARE to blame.

#27 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-11-12 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag

Only in the mind of an uninformed fool. Like you.

Republic is a good idea, democracy is a good idea, winner-take-all is a bad idea. A duopoly is little better than a monopoly.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-11-12 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag

Only for someone who thinks gov'mt should run the financial system, health care system, and provide everyone a monthly check. You seem to think that the founders of this country had any trust in government. They established the process which prevents 'knee jerk' reactions to issues(aka global warming, government rule health care). Why is it everyone looks to government to solve their issues?

its a poltical move to try and shore up his numbers.

Well let's recap....

Does nothing.... criticized for doing nothing.

Does something.... criticezed for doing something.

Go bitch at the sun for shining.

Only in the mind of an uninformed fool. Like you.

OK...enlighten me genius. How do we get where we are today without the Federal Reserve driving down interest rates?

Only for someone who thinks gov'mt should run the financial system, health care system, and provide everyone a monthly check.

I think that governments should adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. "All men are created equal" blah blah blah. One of the rights we should all have is the right to receive health care.

The reason it should be a governmental issue is that it only the government is strong enough to ensure we all get our basic human rights. Otherwise there will be people that don't get health insurance, as is the case today.

I mean, we do it for old people, and the poor, we do it for 40% of the country, let's just stop pretending it isn't a basic thing that everybody deserves.

Children deserve it
Old people deserve it
The very poor deserve it
Wards of the state deserve it
Military personnel deserve it
Senators and Congressmen deserve it
People without insurance can't afford it

Which of those statements sounds fucked up?

I don't look to government to solve all the issues.
But there are some issues that government does solve.
That's why we have a government after all.

OK...enlighten me genius. How do we get where we are today without the Federal Reserve driving down interest rates?

Well, we could have privatized social security... :)

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-11-12 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag

Currently, everyone who needs it receives medical care. Even those who are in this country illegally. The poor have medicaid, the old have medicare, those without it are called 'indigent care'(write offs) by the hosptials, but are treated using the same treatments as someone who has insurance.

Why not attempt to fix the indigent care issue instead of doing a power grab to control everyones access to healthcare. Without the indigent care issue, health costs would not be rising like they are.

So if you have any brains, you will realize the hc bill is not about hc. It is about control and vote buying.

>OK...enlighten me genius. How do we get where we are today without the Federal Reserve driving down interest rates?

#48 | Posted by IraqiBukkake at 2009-11-12 01:43 PM | Reply | Flag

So you equate low interest rates with lack of personal responsibility? The candy was there, I had to eat it.

"Currently, everyone who needs it receives medical care."

Prevention is cheaper than cure, especially cure expected in an ER.

"if you have any brains, you will realize the hc bill is not about hc. It is about control and vote buying."

Slickster obviously has no brains. The HC bill is (or should be) all about trying to stem medical inflation before it gets further out of hand. Remember, it's unlike any other commodity in the marketplace: The government is on the hook for, eventually, most of it.

The HC bill is (or should be) all about trying to stem medical inflation before it gets further out of hand.

2,000 pages and extensive use of the word "Shall".

This bill, if passed, grossly expands the coercive power of the state and you sit there and cheer.

Unbelievable.

:While I agree that the fed has too much power, let's not pretend that Dodd is advocating smaller government. He just wants another branch of government to have the power."

Yeah, the branch that the Constitutions says is supposed to have that power.

"Nice attempt by Dobb to deflect blame for the financial meltdown to the Fed."

Were it definitely belongs. BTW, how many trillions has the Fed loaned and to whom???
Won't tell ya will they.

If Dodd were a REpublican the same people defending the Fed here today, ridiculously BTW, would be defending his bill to lessen their power.

"This bill, if passed, grossly expands the coercive power of the state and you sit there and cheer."

To reign in the power of insurance companies government has to increase its power over them.
You seem to think that corporate power is preferable to government power. From the comparison of our health care expense to those of other modern industrialized nations it is obvious that government is a better cost container than is private insurance. In many comparisons it seems to be twice as good at controlling costs while still insuring all of their citizens while we have millions without insurance but still pay far more.
It just gets to the point that defending the status quo would be laughable if so many in Congress weren't so owned by the insurance lobby.

What percentage of those 535 even have a clue about monetary policy? We all have seen Congress in action recently when they wrote the bailout, and saw their incompetence regrading bonuses. Not to mention the millions of campaign dollars to the likes of Dodd and Schumer after we bailed them out. No surprise you want something else handed to the whack jobs like Pelosi and Reid...

#15 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-11-12 10:35 AM | Reply |

Then who do you hand it to?

"This bill, if passed, grossly expands the coercive power of the state and you sit there and cheer."

The only thing I'm "cheering" is the recognition unstemmed medical inflation will kill us. Speaking of that, what have your suggestions been to actually address the problems?

Only for someone who thinks gov'mt should run the financial system, health care system, and provide everyone a monthly check. You seem to think that the founders of this country had any trust in government. They established the process which prevents 'knee jerk' reactions to issues(aka global warming, government rule health care). Why is it everyone looks to government to solve their issues?

#46 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-11-12 01:27 PM | Reply |

What the alternative? We find a guy we really really trust and have him do it?

Funny what you consider "knee jerk". Both issues have been on the table for at least 2 decades. Thats some knee jerk lol.

The following is taken from a New York Times article from 2003:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Here are two rebuttals to this plan:

"These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

Let's see what another Lawmaker had to say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on May 26, 2006:

"If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."

Wow. Who said that? John McCain did.

So the Fed created the mess? Idiots believe that. Mostly democracks.

"No reforms came about, however"

So, 5 years after Republicans gained control, they didn't reform anything? In 2003, Barney Frank was a minority member of a Republican-controlled committee, the power equivalent to a fart in a windstorm.

The only thing I'm "cheering" is the recognition unstemmed medical inflation will kill us. Speaking of that, what have your suggestions been to actually address the problems?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-12 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag

Fix the indigent care issue by creating a pool for reimbursement to hospitals who provide indigent services. A big pool could be created for a small fraction of the 'projected cost' of the HC bill. This would stop the insured from having to pay higher premiums to cover the cost of indigents which would slow down the growth of health care cost.

Also either enact tort reform or give consumers the ability to sue attorney's for lack of representation. So any time someone looses a court case, they should be able to sue an attorney. Kinda like any time a surgery doesn't work out the way everyone hoped.

loses.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-12 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag

Sure. Well did Frank support the reform or not?

didn't think so.

Completely fucking meaningless.

Just a power grab by another bunch of corporate cocksuckers.

So you equate low interest rates with lack of personal responsibility? The candy was there, I had to eat it.

Without low interest rates, there is no lack of personal responsibility...that is the "candy".

"Fix the indigent care issue by creating a pool for reimbursement to hospitals who provide indigent services. A big pool could be created for a small fraction of the 'projected cost' of the HC bill."

That doesn't address the underlying problems. You're just cost-shifting.

"enact tort reform"

Gee...that'll save, what? One-half of one percent?

"Well did Frank support the reform or not?"

It's a moot point. The folks in charge -- The Republicans -- didn't propose a bill, didn't write a bill, didn't bring that bill to the floor, didn't vote on a bill, didn't pass a bill, and didn't sign a bill into law.

But you want to excuse the guys in power, just so you can falsely blame some guy with a (D) behind his name for not foreseeing what 100-1 leveraging of bad paper against bad paper was going to do 5 years from then.

Heck, as far as I am concerned let's try it. Doing nothing is getting us nowhere fast.

Step one is admiting you have a problem. The Fed is a problem. Time for an audit.