Republicans Launch “Finanacial Choice Act”

Posted by Tina

Two of the Democrats that perpetuated regulation that lead to the financial and housing crash in 2008 were rewarded for their fiscal and fiduciary failures by being given the task to write new banking regulation. What they fashioned was a nightmare of onerous make-work rules. Dodd-Frank was sold as regulation that would “promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system” and to bring an end to “too big to fail” banks. Instead local community banks have have been dropping like flies and the big banking institutions have grown ever larger in size. The people are not being well served. In short this expensive complex regulation has created a burden that negatively affects lending and the services banks provide for their customers.

Today Jeb Henserling (Rep, Texas) has introduced the “Financial CHOICE Act” to repeal Dodd-Frank and replace it with reasonable regulations that provide the following:

1. Eliminate taxpayer-funded bailouts

2. Stop investors from betting with taxpayer money

3. Allow banks to better serve customers at a lower cost

4. The toughest penalties in history for financial fraud, self-dealing, and deception

5. Increase capital formation and entrepreneurship by repealing the Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading investments for their own trading account.

The President calls the republican plan “crazy and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said it, “doesn’t make any sense.”

“Financial industry reform essentially guarantees that taxpayers will not be on the hook for bailing out big banks if their risky bets go south,” Earnest said. “But if you tear it down, like House Republicans say that they want to do, that will allow big banks to go back to making risky bets and put taxpayers back on the hook once again for bailing out those banks to prevent a second Great Depression.”

Too late guys…you’ve already given us the longest non-recovery depression the nation has had to endure but more importantly you are dead wrong. Henserling rebutts:

Hensarling said that the Financial CHOICE Act is the only plan that prevents bailouts.

“It is the president’s own Dodd Frank that codified into law taxpayer bailouts,” Hensarling said. “Again, all you have to do is look into Title I and Title II of Dodd Frank, you will see the ability to designate firms as too big to fail and they are backed up with something called the Orderly Liquidation Authority which is a taxpayer bailout fund which can borrow trillions and trillions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to resolve large Wall Street banks.”

“So what we have here to some extent is a bargain between some elements of Washington and some elements of Wall Street and that is if some banks will accept essentially a utility model then Washington will politically allocate a credit and guarantee that they will never fail,” he said.

Hensarling met with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday to discuss details of the Financial CHOICE Act. Trump has previously said that he wants to “dismantle” Dodd-Frank.

The Democrat Party is all about symbolism and smoke and mirrors. Watch what they do and pay no attention to what they say. It was government regulation that lead to the financial crisis, stupid government regulation that democrats contrived for the ultimate purpose of gaining power…more control OVER banks and a scheme to fool the people and buy votes.

It’s time for the American people to bring an end to regulating games. Democrats use laws to control our lives and play with our futures and livelihoods. Time to send them packing…VOTE THEM OUT! Elect Donald Trump, return republican power to congress, and “Make America Great Again!”

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Education. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Republicans Launch “Finanacial Choice Act”

  1. Pete says:

    Vote for Trump? Really?

    Based on his entrepreneurial history and his penchant for blusterous, jaw dropping, statements I’m pretty sure I don’t want him representing the United States. Hell, I wouldn’t buy a used car from this guy.

    Now, before you all lay into me for being some, foul, leftist liberal, I do not like Hillary Clinton. In my opinion she’s the Devil in Prada. I am a registered Democrat, but I vote for candidates based on their actions and words over their party affiliation. I voted Republican yesterday because I felt a candidate was better qualified than the others.

    As of today, for President, I’m thinking of voting for the Devil I know (Prada) over the Devil I don’t (Used Car dealer). Luke 23:34

    Pete

  2. Tina says:

    I appreciate the pickle we find ourselves in this time around, Pete. Let me see if I have this straight. You would rather vote for a woman under possible indictment for secretly installing a private server to facilitate doing the sensitive work of the Secretary of State while avoiding scrutiny by the government OR the people. You would rather vote for a woman that compromised CIA operatives, risking their lives, so that she could communicate without oversight. You would rather elect a “Devil in Prada” (smile) who inadequately provided for the safety of her staff and others in Benghazi and then conspired with the president to deceive the people. You would rather return a couple to the White House that have both behaved deplorably and lied directly to the people.

    I’m shocked that you wouldn’t give Trump the chance to better the record (Either way) 😉

    The “used car dealer” has won some and lost some. That’s not an unusual record for someone in real estate development, it’s a tough business. His contributions, job creation, charity surely makes up for a few crass words and a blank political slate.

    I respect your right to vote your conscience. Sure hope you will reconsider the Devil in Prada as we move toward November.

    • Pete says:

      At this date, yes. I’d puke and vote for Hillary. I don’t let rumors or theories of conspiracy interfere with my vote. I focus on proven facts.

      Trump, throughout his campaign, has never in my recollection shown the statesmanship needed to be our President. He has used vile names to describe and belittle fellow Americans. He has singled out an entire global religion as terrorists. He has said he’d pay the legal fees of those involved in violence on his behalf. I cannot condone any of his actions.

      I was a member of our military. I was charged with the ungodly, but necessary, act of ensuring the launching of our nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine the horror of being again in that position should Mr. Trump become our President.

      • Tina says:

        Pete I’d say you’re willing to ignore facts to take that position.

        Daily Kos, no friend to conservatives, posted the following in August 2015:

        Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits “Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”, 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

        It’s called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

        It’s up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn’t just about violation of Departmental policy.

        Bill Whittle cites the law in his remarks here:

        U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a: “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

        Paragraph b: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

        Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to conduct, for four years, the office of Secretary of State using her own private email server. Because these emails were not transacted and recorded through the official State Department servers, Mrs. Clinton “willfully concealed and removed” these critical documents from the records and archives of the United States Government. You can further argue that by electing to not have these records placed onto government servers – which are secure, routinely backed up, and most importantly subject to Freedom Of Information Act requests, that she has, by any reasonable interpretation, “mutilated, obliterated and destroyed” these essential records, which belong not to Hillary Rodham Clinton but rather to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and her employers, the people of that nation.

        The penalty for this is a fine or up to three years imprisonment, or both. That’s paragraph (a) of the law.

        By her own admission, transacting ALL of her State Department business through her private server means that by not turning the entire server over to the State Department – all of it, that’s for us to decide what is important or incriminating, not her – she has in fact “willfully and unlawfully concealed, removed, mutilated, obliterated, falsified, or destroyed the same.”

        That too is punishable by fine, up to three years imprisonment, or both… and, parenthetically, forfeiture of office and disqualification from holding any office under the United States.

        That’s the law. That’s what the law says.

        The lawlessness is endemic in this administration. But beyond the lawlessness is, of course, the contempt. The contempt for the very idea that these Harvard and Yale Law School grads have to actually, you know, obey the law. The contempt for the American people’s right to know what their elected officials are doing. And beyond all of this, the towering, monumental, criminal arrogance of it: that the official business of the United States of America; the nation’s diplomacy, strategy, defense posture, privileged communications between our allies and in point of fact every particle of our nation’s foreign policy was being discussed and archived in a single box in either Texas or Manhattan or wherever the hell it is; that this server’s basic, routine, Microsoft security updates – the kind you and I get pestered with every day — were not complied with; that the vital security interests or in fact the very lives of 320 million people did not warrant the effort to even obtain a unique encryption certificate but rather used the same one issued to thousands if not millions of users; all of this gets to the heart not only of who Hillary Clinton is and the contempt in which she holds the American people. It is deeper than that.

        When the President of the United States gets an official notification from his Secretary of State from BestMattressDeals99@yahoo.com, or any email that does not end in dot gov, then he too is complicit in this lawlessness, and for the same reason.

        There is no conspiracy, Pete. But there is a lot of concern about a woman who would deceitfully hide her communications from the eyes of the people to avoid oversight and scrutiny. Dictators operate this way.

        “I cannot condone any of his (Trumps) actions.”

        I don’t much like Trumps uncontrolled mouth.

        But by voting for Hillary you show a willingness to condone behavior that is much more criminal, deceitful and offensive in putting both of the Clinton’s back in the WH.

        “I cannot imagine the horror of being again in that position should Mr. Trump become our President.”

        They said the same of Ronald Reagan; they were wrong, grossly wrong.

        This story is in the gossip category, although it fits Bil Clinton’s loose presidential style…wearing shorts in the Oval Office, Monica in the closet…Bill Clinton is accused of having a nonchalant attitude toward the “nuclear football.” ABC:

        When you’re President of the United States, you can lose a vote, you can lose popular support, and you can lose a round of golf. But you’re never, ever supposed to lose the biscuit.

        That’s what they call the card the president is meant to keep close at hand, bearing the codes that he has to have in order to launch a nuclear attack. And for several months during the Clinton administration, a former top military officer says they lost the biscuit.

        Gen. Hugh Shelton, who served under Clinton as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells the story in his just-published memoir, “Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior.”

        “At one point during the Clinton administration,” Shelton writes, “the codes were actually missing for months. […] That’s a big deal — a gargantuan deal.”

        Shelton claims the story has never been released before, but Ret. Air Force Lt. Col Robert Patterson told a very similar account in his own book, published seven years ago.

        Patterson was one of the men who carried the football, and he says it was literally the morning after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke that he made a routine request of the president to present the card so that he could swap it out for an updated version.

        “He thought he just placed them upstairs,” Patterson recalled. “We called upstairs, we started a search around the White House for the codes, and he finally confessed that he in fact misplaced them. He couldn’t recall when he had last seen them.”

        Trump can probably clean up his act and become more presidential. He has successfully dealt with people in foreign countries and secured deals. You don’t do that by offending the people you’re dealing with. He certainly seems to care about America.

        The former first couple only seem to use the office for personal enrichment and fame. The couple that Hillary claimed was “broke” when they left the WH has now accumulated millions in a few short years. An article in USA Today explains how they are doing it:

        The Clinton Foundation scandal raises a larger question: How can we trust Hillary Clinton with running our nation if she cannot even successfully manage her own foundation?

        It’s shocking that a seasoned politician who has been plotting her comeback for years would not be scrupulous in insisting that her foundation keep meticulous records and avoid controversy. How the Clintons conduct business and their lack of judgment, plus their inability to address the scandals head-on, are clear examples as to why Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president.

        Week two of her campaign rollout has been tough, with startling revelations and allegations that the Clintons were benefiting from their relationships with foreign governments during her time at the Department of State and making themselves very rich in the process. As reported by ABC News, President Bill Clinton “saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China.” The appearance that the Clintons cashed in during her time at the State Department raises serious concerns on how they intertwined personal and foundation-related business.

        The FBI has expanded their investigation to the foundation. Judge Napolitano has called their foundation a “slush fund.” Tax returns reveal this non-profit only gave 10% to charitable causes.

        • Libby says:

          “(Trump) has successfully dealt with people in foreign countries and secured deals.”

          I’m told we should all read The Art of The Deal. He fools people. And if he gets elected, his post-Presidential memoir will be titled How to Sucker the Citizens.

          • Tina says:

            He fools people?

            Hillary fooled the entire nation using a private server. Her time as Secretary of State was going to be a complete fabrication…except she got caught. Bill fooled people into thinking he was Mr. Wonderful…and then we found out he was an irresponsible horn dog. Bills VP, Al Gore, was at the forefront of the biggest (world-wide) scam ever…talk about fooling people!

            If Hillary is, er, indisposed, ensuring Trump wins, you will be happy to be on offense again, am I right?

          • Libby says:

            Actually, I’d be willing to risk five bucks that Hillary did not know. It is an administrative decision. Generally, Secretaries of State do not make those. It’s a staff thing. She could have hung whoever made it out to dry by now, but she hasn’t. I like that. A Democratic sensibility.

        • Pete says:

          Well I won’t dispute your facts. So you can count on my vote for the don.

          Now we should start thinking about paint colors for our new wall. Definitely something high end since Mexico’s picking up the tab.

          • Tina says:

            Pete the one thing we know about DT is that he knows how to negotiate. Most people are aware of the bartering tactic where you demand more than you know you can get. Let’s wait and see what he actually comes up with before we go nuts with those paint colors.

      • Libby says:

        Oh, Pete … thank you.

        Maybe she’ll listen to you.

        I mean, just the fact that Hillary and staff are being uncooperative, that staff have taken the fifth, would seem to indicate … something. And there is a distinct possibility that a year into her term she is indicted (Bernie for VP!).

        But I’ll take arrogant obliviousness over fascistic demagoguery any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

        • Tina says:

          Lets see, Fascistic:

          Government control of the healthcare insurance industry (Exchanges)…check.

          Government control of the student loan program (Sallie Mae) …check.

          Government control over the coal industry, (EPA)…check.

          Government control of the banking industry (Dodd-Frank)…check.

          Plans to take over control of the oil and gas industry (EPA)…on hold due to court order.

          You’ve already moved the goal post on fascistic governance. So lets see, demagogue: “political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socioeconomic classes to gain power and promote political motives….check!

          Obama was your man…arrogant obliviousness AND fascistic demagoguery!

          But he’s Sooooooooooooooooo yesterday! And I don;t think the nation is into a repeat.

          • Libby says:

            I really am going to have to insist that you use the word properly. There is nothing fascistic about democratic legislation. You don’t like the law … you get to say that. But you don’t get to call it things it ain’t … just because you don’t like it.

            And did you think arrogant obliviousness was praise? Breath woman.

      • Libby says:

        P.S.: And this is the choice we are to make? Pitchforks, anyone?

        • Tina says:

          No worries…we seen your program before.

          • Harold says:

            Tina writes ‘No worries…we seen your program before’ Boy have we!

            A federal judge held Clinton in contempt of court for giving “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process”

            Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton, but now Hillary’s feckless Run Secretary of State Department staff is ordered to testify and under investigated, and Hillary could be next.

            False, misleading and evasive answers not only seems to be a Clinton family trait, it does not stop there, they seem to hire for plausible deniability as well.

  3. Chris says:

    “Elect Donald Trump, return republican power to congress”

    Does it not occur to you that these goals are mutually exclusive? Imagine Trump wins. Do you honestly expect that will be good for the Republican brand? Do you expect it will help Republicans get elected to the House and Senate? Have you considered that the reaction will be much like the reaction to Obama, which led to a Tea Party sweep of Congress in 2010, only in reverse and more extreme?

  4. Tina says:

    I’m concerned with the state of the nation and the American people, not my party brand.

    The other choice IS JUST THAT BAD!

    How about you worry about your own brand.

    There’s an equal chance that a Republican Congress and Donald Trump as president will secure the Republican brand for decades to come. Your party has plowed a fertile plot of land filled with the manure of a failed eight years. Ryan says they are prepared to launch legislation to repair this nation and get people working again and more. If they fail well be right back here in a few years. Given the history of both parties I’d bet on Trump and the Republicans: Carter gave us a similar situation, they called it “malaise.” Reagan gave us a robust economy that excited and inspired the world toward freedom and capitalism. Bush blew it with his “No new taxes” promise that he reversed and lost to Clinton who, had he and Hillary been able to implement their ideas would have sunk the country. The Republicans took over in 1998 and to his credit Bill Clinton cooperated, declared an end to “big government” and the economy once again thrived. Bush followed the blueprint on taxes but was smacked down on reforms and was hit with a series of costly disasters. His economy was good, but not great. Republicans were beginning to get a handle on debt and the deficit spending when Democrats took control in Congress in 06. His failure to enact reforms, the war, and too much spending gave us an economy that was sagging toward the end and too much debt. Obama’s policies failed to create a robust economy over seven years, doubled the debt, and left the people back in malaise. it’s clear that policies favored by republicans have worked better for the people over policies democrats favor.

    • Libby says:

      ” … and to his credit Bill Clinton cooperated, declared an end to “big government” ….”

      Ah, Tina, you’ve got it wrong, again. Big, little, … Repug, Dem, it’s what gets done that matters. Bubba repealed Glass-Steagal. The Shrub let Lehman Brothers go under. And between them we got our crash.

      You’re also dead wrong about taxation. More, less, is not the issue … it’s how it’s spent that matters. Since Reagan, it’s been spent on rich people. We’re gonna turn that around.

      • Tina says:

        Accepting simplified justifications and explanations are an indication that you are monumentally stupid in this regard, but nice try.

        The most telling statistics is the number of people that have fallen into poverty under Obama. The redistribution programs have gotten MORE generous since Reagan, not less.

        The rich are getting richer under QE. The difference is that ONLY the rich are making money. The rest of us have LOST eight years of earning power and/or whatever assets we once had. Incredibly with a black man in the WH, blacks are worse off than any other group!

        This article is from 2013 but it still applies. As with many articles that try to establish equivilency over many presidents terms, if you have continue reading you finally get to this:

        During the time George W. Bush was president, with exceptions, it steadily increased from 11.7% in 2001 to 13.2% in 2008. 5 As might be expected, the rate increased during the great recession peaking at 15.1% in 2010.

        As of 2014, some six years after the beginning of the recession and during a period of “recovery,” the rate of poverty remains high at 14.8%. In fact, according to these government statistics, the rate of poverty for every year Obama has been president is higher than it was for every year during George W. Bush’s presidency.

        The percent of people below 125% of the official poverty rate has also been higher every year under Obama than during Bush’s presidency, and has been over 19% every year from 2010 through 2014. The highest level it reached under Bush was during the start of the recession in 2008 when it was at 17.9%.

        What is most disturbing is the percent of the population living in extreme poverty, or having an income at 50% or lower than the poverty level.5 Every year that Obama has been president, the percent of the population at that level of income has been over 6% and, as of 2014, consisted of over 20 million people. When George W. Bush was president, the percent was always under 6%. The last time it was over 6% was during the first year of the Clinton presidency. 6

        Even the record during Reagan’s presidency may be viewed as more favorable than Obama’s. During the time Reagan was president, the official rate of poverty peaked at 15.2% in 1983. Thereafter, it gradually declined to 13.0% in 1988.7 By contrast, the rate of poverty during Obama’s time in office has always been more than 14.3% and was 14.8% in 2014, or almost 2% higher than it was at the end of Reagan’s presidency.

        A quip that was made about Reagan is that he liked poor people so much that he acted to increase their numbers. During his first three years, the poverty rate and the number of people deemed to be impoverished increased, reaching its peak in 1983. Thereafter, from 1983 to the end of Reagan’s presidency in 1988, the number of people deemed to be poor declined by over 3.5 million ending at slightly below the total during the first year of his presidency.

        In contrast to the record of Reagan’s presidency, during the time Obama has been president and statistics are available, 2009-2014, the population has grown by 11.98 million. This is close to its growth for the last six years of Reagan’s presidency. Yet, the number of people deemed to be living in poverty has not declined, but has increased by more than 3 million.

        Whether YOU are willing to smell the coffee or not, the American people are experiencing this malaise, and we are not happy.

        YOU ARE STARVING THE GOLDEN GOOSE, YOU TWIT!

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Hillary is a known. She was an inept Secretary of State. She is a serial liar. She compromised national security foolishly and arrogantly. She is an unindicted flon (so far) who should be charged, found guilty, and imprisoned.

    Trump is an unknown. I’ll take that unknown over Hillary or any Democrat. With Trump there is the possibility of a strong economic recovery. With any Democrat there is not.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Let us hope that Republicans pust through this bill on a fast track and end the lunacy of Dodd-Frank.

  7. Tina says:

    Agreed Pie…and it only took eighteen comments to finally be on point.

    Thank you. I’ve been enjoying your comments of late…you really do have a good mind! Our nation needs a few good men.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.