The Barney Frank Masquerade

ALWAYS GET TAPE!

An email from Barney:

Friend —

The extremists who control the Republican Party have engaged in one of the most implausible masquerades in history by trying to identify themselves with the American Colonials who revolted against British rule.

In fact, as I prepare to go to the floor of the House this week to defend a package of tough financial reforms and consumer and investor protections, I confront a hostile, virtually unanimous Republican Party, which has a major characteristic in common with a different set of eighteenth century figures – the kings of France. When the French monarchy was restored to power in the 19th century, it was said that “The Bourbons have forgotten nothing because they learned nothing.”

Current House Republicans now oppose financial regulation because they have learned nothing from the current economic crisis.

It is time to stand up against them and we need your help now.

Put Main Street First: Contribute Today

The Republicans have opposed virtually every proposal we have put forward to prevent another financial meltdown. They have fought bitterly against the establishment of a consumer financial protection agency; they have blocked efforts to restrict executive compensation; they are against regulation of derivatives, and they have opposed efforts to restrain predatory lending.

But their opposition to any serious financial regulation has some substantial benefits to Republicans in the form of campaign contributions from institutions which want to be able to continue their financial manipulations unimpeded.

I ask your financial support for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, so that Members who vote in favor of tough financial regulation will know that we will stand with them when they are attacked by candidates backed by powerful defenders of the status quo.

Please consider contributing $5, $10 or more today to the DCCC’s Main Street Democratic Fund to help support Democrats who put Main Street first. Your gift will be matched by House Democrats 2-to-1.

There is so much at stake. The time to help is now.

Thank you,

Barney Frank

This coming from the guy that said Fannie and Freddie were fine, and who was one of the people that gave us the expanded Community Reinvestment Act which forced the banks to give ninja loans to people without jobs.  I am glad to know that we are now extremists and even though not registered as republicans, we must therefore be republicans because we espouse the founders’ rules.

Barney Frank’s financial regulatory reform is just another plank in the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Barney Frank To Endorse Rep. Sestak For Specter’s Seat

Well, well, well….it’s almost fun watching the carnivorous dinosaurs eat each other.  You also know what this means; at the end of the day, Sestak has got to be defeated because he is accepting the endorsement of one of the worst offenders in Congress.  That old adage about judging a person’s character by the people that he associates with is raising it’s ugly head again.  Hopefully, this time around more people will be paying attention, and act judiciously.

(more…)

Barney; What Is Messing With Your Groove On Financial Regulatory Reform?

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. – James Madison

********

Now it’s the government’s turn – but this ain’t your founding fathers’ government. – The Monster

********

So what’s up with Barney Frank’s, “let’s kill off private enterprise especially in the area of financial institutions” freight train.  What happened to “we are trying on every front to increase the role of government” mantra? What happened to the “shareholders will be wiped out” with a look of glee in his eye?  Anybody want to comment on the possible reasons behind Barney slowing down legislation to control the financial sector in new and  less productive ways, or are these going to be a series of bills that are voted on in the dead of night on Christmas Eve?

Is there something more important that Barney really needs to attend to?  I wonder what that could be?

Now granted, I can use the extra time to finish reading Barney’s Financial Stability Discussion Draft ,which has gone from 253 pages to 379, with all those un-American and anti-capitalist goodies in it, but I am still darn curious as to what is slowing down ‘ol marxy.

By Silla Brush

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on Tuesday said the House would vote on a wide-ranging financial overhaul no earlier than the first week in December.

Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that as part of the overhaul he is pursuing policies that would grant the federal government broad powers to break up large, troubled financial institutions and would curb the Federal Reserve’s power to prop up specific firms.

The Senate has yet to mark up any of the legislation, and most analysts predict that Congress will not send the president a bill to sign until 2010.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is drafting legislation behind the scenes, and an administration official said on Tuesday that the Senate is not far behind the pace set in the House. Dodd publicly has taken several positions that differ from the administration and Frank, most notably that he is in favor of the consolidation of the nation’s four banking regulators. The administration official said the Dodd language under discussion is an encouraging start.

Frank is currently weighing one of the thorniest aspects of the overhaul, a measure that would give the government new powers to regulate systemic risk and break up failing financial institutions that threaten the wider economy.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that “resolution authority” is one of the most important pieces of the overhaul. That paired with legislation that creates a new “systemic risk council” will be considered in markups that will likely last until the end of November, Frank said.

Referring to the 1930s-era Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited banks from doing both commercial and investment bank business, Frank said he could see the new systemic risk regulator imposing “Glass-Steagall institution by institution.”

The Federal Reserve is designated in the legislation as the main regulator to oversee large, systemically important financial firms.

That would allow the government to break up institutions and reduce them by size or other measures. “The systemic risk regulator, I believe, will be given explicit mandates to step in when there is a troubled institution,” Frank said.

Separately, Frank struck a tough tone on the scope and power of the Federal Reserve. Throughout the crisis, the central bank relied on legislation dating back to the 1930s granting broad powers to the bank in “unusual and exigent” circumstances.

Once again, what you see and what you get a two completely different animals.  I will explain it all in the upcoming post about the FSIA.

If you would like to see all the drafts for just financial regulatory reform that Barney is working on right now, go here.

Barney Frank Guts The Financial Sector

Barney Frank is a thirty eight year career politician with NO BANKING experience, and NO PRIVATE SECTOR experience, and he is about to go down in history as the politician that gutted the financial industry.  This shows you Barney’s lack of experience:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal reflected the administration’s belief that Congress “neither has the tools, nor the stature” for adequate oversight. Frank stated, “These two entities…are not facing any kind of financial crisis…. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”[51] The two companies, which together own or back more than half the home mortgages in the US became “hobbled” by loan defaults.[52] In 2009 Frank said that Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis at the time and many financial institutions, like Lehman Brothers, also fell into crisis from 2003 to 2008.[53] Frank also said that, “In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, ‘Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it’s going to put people in homes they can’t afford, and they’re gonna lose them.’” [10]

It was not Bush that pushed the banks, it was the Community Reinvestment Act and the Democrats.

I am still working on  the Financial Stability Improvement discussion draft (shown below), and rest assured, it sacrifices freedom for security.  After reading about halfway through, if anyone wants to invest in an American financial institution, they must have rocks in their heads because the shareholder is lower than dirt in this bill.  Let’s take those Indiana pension funds that got hammered over the Chrysler deal and multiply by a gazillion.  If and when I get to the section that talks about financial institutions paying for bailouts instead of us, I’ll let you know.   Rest assured, I will be posting my findings and appropriate sections of this bill.  In the meantime:

Barney, in his own words…

…the last piece, which we will be voting on this week, has to do with putting the federal government in charge of watching closely what institutions are likely to get into trouble, and before they get to the point where they are going to fail and cause alot of problems and ask for bailout, the federal regulators will step in and say, “you must increase your capital substantially, you have to reduce your level of exposure, you must get out of this line of work or that, and if we do have to step in it will be very painful for those companies.  They will be put out of business, their CEOs will be fired, shareholders will be wiped out. You’re not going to have a situation where people can expect to be bailed out and live happily ever after.

What Barney means is mandatory/involuntary bankruptcy (Page 35, Line 18), firing of senior executives (Page 32, Line 16), and Page 34 -Line 4, and then there is the bailout:

SEC. 1109. EMERGENCY FINANCIAL STABILIZATION
16 (a) IN GENERAL.— Upon the written approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal
17 Reserve System (which approval shall be made upon a vote of not less than two-thirds of the
18 members of such Board then serving) and the Board of Directors of the Corporation (which
19 approval shall be made upon a vote of not less than two-thirds of the members of such Board
20 then serving), and with the written consent of the Secretary of the Treasury (after consulting with
21 the President), the Corporation may extend credit to or guarantee obligations of solvent insured
22 depository institutions or other solvent companies that are predominantly engaged in activities
23 that are financial in nature, if necessary to prevent financial instability during times of severe

44 DISCUSSION DRAFT – 10/27/2009
1 economic distress, provided that a credit extension or guarantee of obligations under this section
2 shall not include provision of equity in any form.

Rep Barney Frank Discusses New “Too Big To Fail” Regulations

Financial Stability Improvement Discussion Draft 10.27.09

Barney Frank’s Financial Stability Improvement Draft Legislation

I am posting the Press Release and committee meeting information for the 253 page discussion draft of the Financial Stability Improvement bill to regulate the financial industry that we have been waiting for.  I am also currently reading the actual draft, found here, and will post on it when I have something to report.

Upcoming HFS Committee meeting on the following draft legislation: Thursday, October 29, 2009, 9:30 a.m., in room 2128 Rayburn House Office Building. The Full Committee will hold a hearing on: “Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority and Securitization

Press Release
For Immediate Release: October 27, 2009

Financial Services Committee and Treasury Department Release Draft Legislation to Address Systemic Risk, “Too Big to Fail” Institutions

Washington, DC – Today, the House Financial Services Committee and the Treasury Department released draft legislation to address the issue of systemic risk and “too big to fail” financial institutions. The draft bill will:

  • Create a mechanism for monitoring and reducing the threats that systemically risky firms pose to the financial system.
  • Establish a process for winding down large, financially-troubled non-bank financial institutions in a way that protects American taxpayers and minimizes the impact on the financial system.
  • Overhaul and update our financial regulatory system.

A summary of the draft legislation can be viewed below; the full text can be viewed here.

Summary of the Financial Stability Improvement Act

The Financial Services Committee and the Obama Administration are committed to ensuring that the taxpayers are never again called upon to take responsibility for Wall Street’s business decisions.  The bill creates a strong, inter-agency council to monitor and oversee stability of the financial system and address threats to that stability.  The bill provides strengthened supervision for large, interconnected financial firms to prevent failure.  A new resolution regime will ensure that firms that fail despite these measures will do so in a way that minimizes impacts on taxpayers, the health of the financial system and the overall economy.

Specifically, the draft legislation:

Creates the Financial Services Oversight Council to monitor systemic risks.

  • The Council will identify financial companies and financial activities that pose a threat to financial stability, and will subject those companies and activities to heightened prudential oversight, standards and regulation.
  • The Council will also subject systemically important financial market utilities and payment, clearing and settlement activities to heightened oversight, standards and regulation.

Harmonizes and consolidates holding company regulation so there is “no place to hide,” ensures communication and coordination among regulators and maintains clear lines of authority

  • Removes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s restraints on the Fed’s authority over companies subject to consolidated regulation and provides specific authority to the Fed and other federal financial agencies to regulate for financial stability purposes and quickly address potential problems.
  • Puts safeguards on current ILC and other non-bank bank institutions and closes the ILC and other non-bank bank exemptions going forward; current non-bank banks, industrial loan companies, and similar companies that engage in commercial activities but are not currently subject to bank holding company regulation will not have to divest, but will have to restructure, creating a bank holding company to hold all financial activities, and will face limits on transactions between the bank holding company and any commercial affiliates.  Going forward, no additional commercial companies will be allowed to own banks, ILCs or any other specialty bank charters.
  • Preserves the thrift charter for those thrifts dedicated to mortgage lending, but subjects thrift holding companies to supervision by the Fed to eliminate opportunities for regulatory arbitrage.

Subjects firms or activities that pose significant risks to the system to heightened, comprehensive scrutiny by Federal regulators.

  • Regulators’ inability to see developments outside their narrow “silos” allowed the current crisis to grow unchecked.  The bill’s information gathering and sharing requirements for the Council and all of the financial regulators (including SEC and CFTC) will ensure constant communication and the ability to look across markets for potential risks.
  • Federal regulators will impose heightened standards through a variety of options tailored to the specific threat posed – there is no “one size fits all” approach.
  • The Fed will have back-up authority to step in if regulators do not act quickly to address developing problems identified by the Council.

Provides for the orderly wind-down of failing firms and ends “too big to fail” to ensure that industry and shareholders absorb the risks and costs of failure, not taxpayers.

  • Large, highly complex financial companies that fail will do so in an orderly and controlled manner, ensuring that shareholders and unsecured creditors bear the losses, not taxpayers, and the stability of the overall financial system is protected.
  • The FDIC will be able to unwind a failing firm so that existing contracts can be dealt with, creditors’ claims can be addressed, and parties required to bear losses do so.  Unlike traditional bankruptcy, which does not account for complex interrelationships of such large firms and may endanger financial stability, this more flexible process will help prevent contagion and disruption to the entire system and the overall economy.
  • Costs to resolve a failing firm will be repaid first from the assets of the failed firm at the expense of shareholders and creditors, and to the extent of any shortfall, from assessments on all large financial firms.  In this instance we follow the “polluter pays” model where the financial industry has to pay for their mistakes—not taxpayers.
  • Resolution Fund is structured to spread the cost over a broad range of financial companies with assets of $10 billion or more, and provides for a flexible repayment period to avoid potential procyclical effect of such assessments.

Provides new accountability for the Fed when it addresses short-term credit market disruptions in emergency situations.

Requires approval by the Treasury Secretary for the Fed to provide temporary liquidity assistance using section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, and confines that assistance to generally available facilities.

Credit Risk Retention

  • Directs the federal banking regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission to jointly write rules to require creditors to retain 10 percent or more, of the credit risk associated with any loans that are transferred or sold including for the purpose of securitization.  Regulators can adjust the level of risk retention above or below 10 percent, but not lower than 5 percent.  In the case of the securitization of assets that are not originated by creditors, the regulators will require the securitizer to retain the credit risk.
  • UPDATE: I have made it to page 43 and it doesn’t sound at all like the summary above; mandatory bankruptcy, and involuntary bankruptcy rise to mind. As for the “no one size fits all” approach – that’s a bit misleading – but then again, you already knew that.

    The most glaring contradiction is the use of the phrase “pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States” – does this not describe our current federal government who is going to raise the debt ceiling to $13 TRILLION?

    UPDATE: Scribd version of the bill:
    Financial Stability Improvement Discussion Draft 10.27.09

    “Unintended Consequences”; Maurice Greenberg And C.V. Starr

    On one side there are the Barney Franks and Federal Reserve Bankers trying to control the financial industry while not listening to those that understood what was coming.  On the other side are the entrepreneurs who are still going to try to make a buck before the country completely flips over to communist China.  In the middle?  Why that would be us, the hardworking taxpayer that cannot get the Congress or this administration to stop the stupidity even when they are warned of “unintended consequences”.  Remember the $186 Billion that went to save AIG, and how limiting bonuses was going to be a drain on companies that “We The People” now own?   Barney Frank has an answer for this too, and we are about to hear about it soon.

    Ex-A.I.G. Chief Is Back, Luring Talent From Rescued Firm

    Maurice R. Greenberg, who built the American International Group into an insurance behemoth with an impenetrable maze of on- and offshore companies, is at it again.

    Even as he has been lambasting the government for its handling of A.I.G. after its near collapse, Mr. Greenberg has been quietly building up a family of insurance companies that could compete with A.I.G. To fill the ranks of his venture, C.V. Starr & Company, he has been hiring some people he once employed.

    Now, Mr. Greenberg may have received some unintended assistance from the United States Treasury. Just last week, the Treasury severely limited pay at A.I.G. and other companies that were bailed out by taxpayers. That may hasten the exodus of A.I.G.’s talent, sending more refugees into Mr. Greenberg’s arms, since C. V. Starr is free to pay whatever it wants. (emphasis mine)

    “Basically, he’s just starting ‘A.I.G. Two’ and raiding people out of ‘A.I.G. One,’ ” said Douglas A. Love, an insurance executive who has also hired A.I.G. talent for his company, Investors Guaranty Fund of Pembroke, Bermuda.

    While America generally loves stories of entrepreneurs making a comeback, Mr. Greenberg’s success may be at the expense of taxpayers. People who work in the industry say that if he is already luring A.I.G.’s people, he may soon be siphoning off its business and, therefore, its means to repay its debt to the government.

    “To me, it’s just going to be a matter of time before the valuation of what he’s building is greater than the valuation of A.I.G.,” said Andrew J. Barile, an insurance consultant in Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.

    Barney Frank and his buddies are either too stupid or too dangerous to serve.  It’s time to dethrone the chairman of the banking committee, and abolish The Fed.

    I’m feeling a post all about Barney is coming soon; how does a fascist liberal democrat end up in charge of the nation’s banks?

    Barney Frank’s Impending Legislation

    I am waiting and watching for what Barney and Timmie have up their  sleeves now, but we have a hint of what is coming Thursday, and I am sure the banks are REALLY not going to like this.  I know that, as a little person, giving this government any more power is more than a bit psychotic.

    US Treasury backs plan for banks to make ‘living wills’ in case of collapse

    In a move mirroring regulations being discussed in the UK, the Obama administration will this week back plans by the House of Representative’s Financial Services committee to introduce a bill to ensure that major banks and non-bank institutions cannot become “too big to fail”.

    The legislation will force institutions to boost reserves and make it harder for them to leverage against their own assets. It will also force large institutions with the potential systemic risk to create and possibly publish “living wills” which would set out how they could be wound down in an orderly manner.

    The bill would potentially mean that were a large company to collapse, its bankruptcy would be controlled by the US government rather than its creditors. (emphasis mine)

    How un-American is that? Do you think that Americans are going to be rushing to invest? Does it remind you of the inception of the Federal Reserve System?

    It is expected that the bill, written in consultation with officials from both the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury, is to be published in the next few days. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is then expected to endorse it on Thursday.

    Please keep your eye on the ball when it comes to the healthcare bill, but definitely check back in on what Barney and Timmie are up to.

    Idiot In Charge Award: Nancy Pelosi

    Please remember that the IICA goes to people who exhibit “sheer ‘slap Americans in the face’ stupidity” instead of unbelievable escapades like The Fed losing $9 Trillion dollars.

    Today’s IICA goes to Nancy Pelosi for comments made at a Florida senior center while she was trying to rename the “public option” to “competitive option”; probably on the advice of some focus group that really did not understand how dense this lobotomized walking meat suit actually is.

    Here are the money quotes from Breitbart:

    “You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,'” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

    So the public option is not being paid for by American Taxpayers and Small Business?  All monies that flow from the government come from the taxpayer, or in our case, The Federal Reserve that just cannot stop printing money which we have to pay interest on.  How does that work again? Yes, that’s right; we pay interest to a private banking cartel who prints our money and loans it to us, all with the blessing of Congress.  (And people wonder why there is an IICA.)

    Pelosi said that was a misconception and that any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid. She also said such an option would ultimately drive down government health care costs.

    Any taxpayer money used to start up the public option would be repaid?  Kinda like the T.A.R.P. money which has not been, and the amounts that have are already being eyed by Barney for Main Street TARP?  Does that not mean that our hard earned money is going bye-bye, never to be seen again.

    Like I said, lobotomized walking meat suit surrounded by more lobotomized walking meat suits.  Had a recent look at the Debt Clock lately? I have the link on speed dial.

    On another note, I wonder how much of this is going to ACORN?

    HR 3766 Main Street TARP Act of 2009 (Barney Frank)

    HR 3766 IH

    111th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 3766

    To use amounts made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury for relief for homeowners and affordable rental housing.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    October 8, 2009

    Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Ms. WATERS, Mr. KANJORSKI, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. FATTAH, and Mr. CUMMINGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services


    A BILL

    To use amounts made available under the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury for relief for homeowners and affordable rental housing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Main Street TARP Act of 2009’.

    SEC. 2. HOUSING TRUST FUND.

    (a) Use of TARP Funds- Using the authority available under sections 101(a) and 115(a) of division A of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211(a), 5225(a)), the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development $1,000,000,000, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall credit such amount to the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568) for use in accordance with such section.

    (b) Tenant Rent Contribution- Subparagraph (A) of section 1338(c)(7) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568(c)(7)(A)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘; and except that all rental housing dwelling units shall be subject to legally binding commitments that ensure that the contribution toward rent by a family residing in a dwelling unit shall not exceed 30 percent of the adjusted income of such family’.

    SEC. 3. EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF.

    (a) Use of TARP Funds- Using the authority available under sections 101(a) and 115(a) of division A of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211(a), 5225(a)), the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development $2,000,000,000, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall credit such amount to the Emergency Homeowners’ Relief Fund, which such Secretary shall establish pursuant to section 107 of the Emergency Housing Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2706), as such Act is amended by this section, for use for emergency mortgage assistance in accordance with title I of such Act.

    (b) Reauthorization of Emergency Mortgage Relief Program- Title I of the Emergency Housing Act of 1975 is amended–

    (1) in section 103 (12 U.S.C. 2702)–

    (A) in paragraph (2)–

    (i) by striking ‘have indicated’ and all that follows through ‘regulation of the holder’ and insert ‘have certified’;

    (ii) by striking ‘(such as the volume of delinquent loans in its portfolio)’; and

    (iii) by striking ‘, except that such statement’ and all that follows through ‘purposes of this title’; and

    (B) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘or medical conditions’ after ‘adverse economic conditions’;

    (2) in section 104 (12 U.S.C. 2703)–

    (A) in subsection (b), by striking ‘the lesser of $250 per month or’; and

    (B) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘, except that such interest rate may exceed such maximum rate but only as necessary to comply with rules under a program operated by a State that otherwise complies with program rules under this title’;

    (3) in section 105 (12 U.S.C. 2704)–

    (A) by striking subsection (b);

    (B) in subsection (e)–

    (i) by inserting ‘and emergency mortgage relief payments made under section 106’ after ‘insured under this section’; and

    (ii) by striking ‘$1,500,000,000 at any one time’ and inserting ‘$2,000,000,000’;

    (C) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and

    (D) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ‘(e) The Secretary shall establish underwriting guidelines or procedures to allocate amounts made available for loans and advances insured under this section and for emergency relief payments made under section 106 based on the likelihood that a mortgagor will be able to resume mortgage payments, pursuant to the requirement under section 103(5).’;

    (4) in section 107–

    (A) by striking ‘(a)’; and

    (B) by striking subsection (b);

    (5) in section 108 (12 U.S.C. 2707), by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ‘(d) The Secretary may allow funds to be administered by a State through an existing program that complies with program rules under this title.’;

    (6) in section 109 (12 U.S.C. 2708)–

    (A) in the section heading, by striking ‘AUTHORIZATION AND’;

    (B) by striking subsection (a);

    (C) by striking ‘(b)’; and

    (D) by striking ‘1977’ and inserting ‘2011’;

    (7) by striking sections 110, 111, and 113 (12 U.S.C. 2709, 2710, 2712); and

    (8) by redesignating section 112 (12 U.S.C. 2711) as section 110.

    SEC. 4. REDUCING TARP AUTHORIZATION LIMIT TO OFFSET COSTS.

    Paragraph (3) of section 115(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5225) is amended by striking ‘$1,259,000,000’ and inserting ‘2,259,000,000’.

    Barney on CNN; OMFG!

    Today’s AYFKM? Award: Maxine Waters And ACORN

    10.26.09: I am bumping up this post as I wrote so many yesterday that many have missed this very IMPORTANT INFORMATION!

    Mahalo, DT

    ********

    (H/T Mike)

    Any doubt who the traitors to the Republic actually are?

    From Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

    Democrats Vote To Give ACORN Regulatory Authority Over Financial Institutions

    WASHINGTON – During consideration of H.R. 3126, legislation to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee voted to pass an amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) that will make ACORN eligible to play a role in setting regulations for financial institutions. (emphasis mine)

    The Waters amendment adds to the CFPA Oversight Board 5 representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to join Federal banking regulators in advising the Director on the consistency of proposed regulations, and strategies and policies that the Director should undertake to enforce its rules.

    By making representatives of ACORN and other consumer activist organizations eligible to serve on the Oversight Board, the amendment creates a potentially enormous government sanctioned conflict of interest.  ACORN-type organizations will have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions and benefit from other financial partnerships and arrangements.  These are the same organizations that pressured banks to make subprime mortgage loans and thus bear a major responsibility for the collapse of the housing market.

    In light of recent evidence linking ACORN to possible criminal activity, Democrats took an unprecedented step today to give ACORN a potential role alongside bank regulators in overseeing financial institutions.  This is contrary to recent actions taken by the Senate and House to block federal funds to ACORN.

    A recent inquiry into bank funding of ACORN activities by three House Committees found that institutions that would be regulated by the CFPA have provided millions of dollars to the organization in the form of direct donations, lines of credit, cash, and other assets over the last 15 years.

    The Waters amendment passed on a vote of 35-33. Click here to view the vote.

    H.R. 3126 Sponsored by, guess who, Barney Frank.

    As soon as I finish reading this POS, I will put it up.  If you want to peruse it, click on the link above.

    Today’s AYFKM? Award; B of A and Citigroup

    Bank of America and Citigroup want to lead the charge (no pun intended) on charging customers who pay off their balances each month and have perfect credit….because they just aren’t making any money off them.  This is right up there with increasing taxes in hopes of making more revenue and finding that you just made tax revenue go through the basement.  Obviously, there are no true economists that can add using real math instead of red crayon figures at any of these companies.

    Got Perfect Credit? You Could Be Charged For It!
    Bank Of America, Citigroup First To Try Out Idea, Which Will Undoubtedly Alienate Many Who Follow The Rules

    By ALEXIS CHRISTOFOROUS, CBS 2 HD News

    NEW YORK (CBS) ―Loraine Mullen-Kress carries a Bank of America credit card and religiously pays off her balance.

    “Flawless credit,” she boasted.

    Yet now, her good credit habits could cost her. Earlier this month Bank of America started notifying customers like Mullen-Kress that they will be charged a new annual fee of $29 to $99.

    “There is a big segment of their population that they will have never made money on, which is people who pay their bills on time every month,” said Ben Woolsey, Director of Consumer Research at CreditCards.com.

    Bank of America said in a statement: “At this point we’re testing the fee on a very small number of accounts and haven’t made any final decisions.” Citigroup is also trying out an annual fee with some card holders, and analysts expect more banks to follow their lead.

    The banks are starting to charge fees to reliable customers in response to a slew of new credit card industry regulations that will limit when banks can hike interest rates. Cardholders who get a new annual fee notice in the mail will be in a no-win situation.

    “They can either pay that fee or they can close the account, and if they have had the account for a while and they close it, they are potentially going to hurt their credit card score,” said Woolsey. (emphasis mine)

    Have ya coming and going there don’t they?  Thanks to Barney Frank and the rest of congress that created this mess with their new credit card rules.

    Analysts say right now the banks are trying to figure out what their customers will tolerate. Many say they’d cancel cards with a high new annual fee.

    “I think it is really bad. They’re encouraging you to be a bed creditor or not have good credit,” one New Yorker told CBS 2 HD.

    Said Mullen-Kress: “An annual fee would not be tolerated.”

    Credit card companies call the fees an experiment. Whether they stick depends on whether customers are willing to pay for something that’s been free for so long.

    Bad Behavior has blocked 2106 access attempts in the last 7 days.

    %d bloggers like this: