the waker wrote:
Well I'm tired of debuting this so perhaps you progressives should pay attention:
1) universal health care has cost the tax payers close to a 850 million dollars to cover a quarter of the people that didn't have it before (15 million, some of which already had it)
The reason the last five presidents didn't touch it is because there was no way to justify the cost. Its simple arithmetic. Also still does nothing for those who go to the emergency who don't have insurance ( like the 65,000 illegals).
2) Passing out 787 billion dollars of our children's tax payer dollars to crony friends that got him elected and other various wasteful spending, did nothing but band aid the situation. True world wide economic indicators tell a different story.
Also how can you eliminate debt w/ more debt? Just what dollar amount do you believe our deficit has reached? Do you believe this to be sustainable?
3) Now as far as wall street, how repealed the Glass Steagal act that lead to the market collapse? No, not Bush. So really allObama did was put back into place the same regulations Clinton got rid of.
Not a lot to hang your hat on after 5 yrs, the fact is he pushes his agendas for his benefit.
Well I'm tired of debuting this so perhaps you pro... (
show quote)
Haave to go back outside and get ready for the mild coming winter, so I will simply post this over-long piece and knowing this will go on, may add to later...
Obamas Other Success
Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Is Working
By PAUL KRUGMANAUG. 3, 2014
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Email
Share
Tweet
Save
more
Continue reading the main story
Although the enemies of health reform will never admit it, the Affordable Care Act is looking more and more like a big success. Costs are coming in below predictions, while the number of uninsured Americans is dropping fast, especially in states that havent tried to sabotage the program. Obamacare is working.
But what about the administrations other big push, financial reform? The Dodd-Frank reform bill has, if anything, received even worse press than Obamacare, derided by the right as anti-business and by the left as hopelessly inadequate. And like Obamacare, its certainly not the reform you would have devised in the absence of political constraints.
But also like Obamacare, financial reform is working a lot better than anyone listening to the news media would imagine. Lets talk, in particular, about two important pieces of Dodd-Frank: creation of an agency protecting consumers from misleading or fraudulent financial sales pitches, and efforts to end too big to fail.
The decision to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shouldnt have been controversial, given what happened during the housing boom. As Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve official who warned prophetically of problems in subprime lending, asked, Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? He went on, The question answers itself the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products. The need for more protection was obvious.
Of course, that obvious need didnt stop the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, financial industry lobbyists and conservative groups from going all out in an effort to prevent the bureaus creation or at least stop it from doing its job, spending more than $1.3 billion in the process. Republicans in Congress dutifully served the industrys interests, notably by trying to prevent President Obama from appointing a permanent director. And the question was whether all that opposition would hobble the new bureau and make it ineffective.
At this point, however, all accounts indicate that the bureau is in fact doing its job, and well well enough to inspire continuing fury among bankers and their political allies. A recent case in point: The bureau is cracking down on billions in excessive overdraft fees.
Better consumer protection means fewer bad loans, and therefore a reduced risk of financial crisis. But what happens if a crisis occurs anyway?
The answer is that, as in 2008, the government will step in to keep the financial system functioning; nobody wants to take the risk of repeating the Great Depression.
Continue reading the main story
Recent Comments
JL
4 August 2014
But how do you rescue the banking system without rewarding bad behavior? In particular, rescues in times of crisis can give large financial players an unfair advantage: They can borrow cheaply in normal times, because everyone knows that they are too big to fail and will be bailed out if things go wrong.
The answer is that the government should seize troubled institutions when it bails them out, so that they can be kept running without rewarding stockholders or bondholders who dont need rescue. In 2008 and 2009, however, it wasnt clear that the Treasury Department had the necessary legal authority to do that. So Dodd-Frank filled that gap, giving regulators Ordinary Liquidation Authority, also known as resolution authority, so that in the next crisis we can save systemically important banks and other institutions without bailing out the bankers.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Bankers, of course, hate this idea; and Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell tried to help their friends with the Orwellian claim that resolution authority was actually a gift to Wall Street, a form of corporate welfare, because it would grease the skids for future bailouts.
But Wall Street knew better. As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute points out, if being labeled systemically important were actually corporate welfare, institutions would welcome the designation; in fact, they have fought it tooth and nail. And a new study from the Government Accountability Office shows that while large banks were able to borrow more cheaply than small banks before financial reform passed, that advantage has now essentially disappeared. To some extent this may reflect generally calmer markets, but the study nonetheless suggests that reform has done at least part of what it was supposed to do.
Did reform go far enough? No. In particular, while banks are being forced to hold more capital, a key force for stability, they really should be holding much more. But Wall Street and its allies wouldnt be screaming so loudly, and spending so much money in an effort to gut the law, if it werent an important step in the right direction. For all its limitations, financial reform is a success story.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 4, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Obamas Other Success. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe