Congress gives 98% of banks "special" exemption from banking practice laws.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/business/16regulate.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — Bowing to political pressure from community bankers, the House Financial Services Committee approved an exemption on Thursday for more than 98 percent of the nation's banks from oversight by a new agency created to protect consumers from abusive or deceptive credit cards, mortgages and other loans.

The carve-out in legislation overhauling the regulatory system would prevent the new consumer financial protection agency from conducting annual examinations of the lending practices at more than 8,000 of the nation's 8,200 banks, leaving only the largest banks and other lenders subject to the agency's examiners.

Earlier in the day, the committee completed its work on a different contentious provision of the legislation when, on a nearly straight party-line vote of 43 to 26, it approved tougher regulations over the derivatives market. That provision, too, contained exemptions for many businesses.

The exemption for the banks was endorsed by the chairman, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who saw it as necessary to win support for the overall bill from the committee's moderate and conservative Democrats. Their support is particularly important because the Republicans are unified against the legislation.

[AFK]

Oh great, Barney Frank just pulled a Baucus. 

[LMNO]

Highly relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROlDmux7Tk4

[The Good Reverend Roger]

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This is the not surprising news...

[Cain]

It can't be that special then, since 98% of them are exempted from it.  Almost the opposite of special, in fact.

[RawCredente]

If only committee chairmen had the stones to make these "moderate and conservative dems" vote down the amendments and out themselves as lobbyist-slaves.  Then their constituents could toss them out in the primaries.

This amendment doesn't seem as horrible as it sounds on first glance though.  Reading the article it says the "exemption" is for "...banks with assets of less than $10 billion and credit unions smaller than $1.5 billion..."  Sounds like the 2% of banks the legislation would regulate are the tremendous, evil giants like BoA and WF that need regulation the most desperately. What I want to know is what percentage of the money falls into the category of "small banks", and what percentage of the population uses them?

While an exemption this huge is pretty outrageous, it doesn't totally neuter the bill.

[LMNO]

Time to figure out how many articles of incorporation it takes to "separate" a small bank from it's behemoth owner.

LMNO
-Loopholes, loopholes, who's got the loopholes?

[Jenne]

There was a dude on NPR yesterday who was talking about the fact that when the news broke about Wall Street's financial tanking a year ago, Geithner was on the phone with AIG, Goldman-Sachs and a couple of other banking bigwigs, then on the phone with the president, then back on the phone with the banking fucks.  At 3 in the morning, no less.  Basically the banking fucks control what's even being reported to the government as well as the media/people at large.

The smaller banks, on the other hand, don't have that pull.  And never will.

[Kai]

shit just keeps piling higher

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

I'm ashamed of where I work.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Awwwwwww

[Requia ☣]

If only committee chairmen had the stones to make these "moderate and conservative dems" vote down the amendments and out themselves as lobbyist-slaves.  Then their constituents could toss them out in the primaries.

This amendment doesn't seem as horrible as it sounds on first glance though.  Reading the article it says the "exemption" is for "...banks with assets of less than $10 billion and credit unions smaller than $1.5 billion..."  Sounds like the 2% of banks the legislation would regulate are the tremendous, evil giants like BoA and WF that need regulation the most desperately. What I want to know is what percentage of the money falls into the category of "small banks", and what percentage of the population uses them?

While an exemption this huge is pretty outrageous, it doesn't totally neuter the bill.

That doesn't keep the big banks fron buying unregulated debt.

[Cain]

There was a dude on NPR yesterday who was talking about the fact that when the news broke about Wall Street's financial tanking a year ago, Geithner was on the phone with AIG, Goldman-Sachs and a couple of other banking bigwigs, then on the phone with the president, then back on the phone with the banking fucks.  At 3 in the morning, no less.  Basically the banking fucks control what's even being reported to the government as well as the media/people at large.

The smaller banks, on the other hand, don't have that pull.  And never will.

This may be relevant to your interests:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/msm-reporting-as-propaganda-no-one-minds-our-new-financial-lords-and-masters-edition.html

Goldman Sachs and Geithner also coordinated with Paulson over what exactly to do with AIG....nevermind that all three had a vested interest in keeping AIG afloat and letting Lehman Brothers (a competitor to Goldman) sink without a trace.  In fact, that might be the very same meeting.

[Jenne]

There was a dude on NPR yesterday who was talking about the fact that when the news broke about Wall Street's financial tanking a year ago, Geithner was on the phone with AIG, Goldman-Sachs and a couple of other banking bigwigs, then on the phone with the president, then back on the phone with the banking fucks.  At 3 in the morning, no less.  Basically the banking fucks control what's even being reported to the government as well as the media/people at large.

The smaller banks, on the other hand, don't have that pull.  And never will.

This may be relevant to your interests:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/msm-reporting-as-propaganda-no-one-minds-our-new-financial-lords-and-masters-edition.html

Goldman Sachs and Geithner also coordinated with Paulson over what exactly to do with AIG....nevermind that all three had a vested interest in keeping AIG afloat and letting Lehman Brothers (a competitor to Goldman) sink without a trace.  In fact, that might be the very same meeting.

Ugh.  Though this doesn't shock me, it turns my stomach no end.