Key Questions On Banking Reform

Anthony Mason Breaks Down Obama's New Plan For Wall Street

(CBS)  CBS News business correspondent Anthony Mason sat down with CBS News anchor Harry Smith to discuss President Obama's plan for banking regulation reform.

Q: The White House says this is their attempt to prevent another financial meltdown like the one we've been living through. How will it work?

A: Among the Obama plan's key points are that it would give the Federal Reserve greater authority over large financial institutions, thought to be "systematically important to the economy." That means those banks felt to be "too big to fail."

It would create a new regulatory council, chaired by the Treasury Department to identify emerging systemic risks to the economy, like those credit default swaps that helped lead to the subprime mortgage mess.

And, it would set up a new consumer financial protection agency. This agency would have the authority to approve or reject mortgage products. It would also establish new disclosure rules for home loans, credit cards and other consumer debt - so you'll actually be able to read and understand what's in the fine print.

Q: Critics say this is too much regulation. Others say it's not enough. Can the White House make this a Goldilocks moment? Can they get it just right?

A: Well, this would be the most significant regulatory reform since the Depression. But as far as it goes, some say it still doesn't go far enough. The devil, as always, will be in the details, which will be up to Congress how many teeth they put in the reform.

Q: The President seemed less critical of Wall Street than in the past.

A: He spread the blame around a bit more today. There is plenty in his plan Wall Street won't like. But noticeably absent from the president's plan are limits on executive compensation, which the banks did not want.

[anti-global2]

The Federal Reserve is part of the problem. Oversite is needed but the FED needs ot be abolished. If Ron Paul's bill goes through and they audit the FED they will probably end up as vulnerable as most of the banks were. Then they will be done for.
Why do we need a few banking families, mostly foriegn, running the United Staes financial system? We don't print money on the gold standard, Amercian money is basically an IOU for good and services provided in the future.
It is interesting if you look at Germany, the Weimar Republic and Hitler you will see that after WWI hitler moved Germany's monetary system away from gold and would not take any credit or money form the world banking elite. He made german currency an IOU for future goods and services like we have now. The difference was he would not bend to the world banking elite and they hated him for it. This soon led to the quickest economic recovery in modern history despite sanctions placed on Germany after WWI. Prior to WWII germany was europe's wealthiest nation thanks to this monetary policy. The banking elite quickly saw that other countries would do the same if they were left alone to prosper, so they organized a world wide boycot of German goods. This little known fact had alot to do with the germans starting WWII, but they don't like to teach that in school, i wonder why.
As for Hitler's jewish policy I am not defending that, I am just saying he based the Greman economy on the same principals we have now, only he refused to be influenced by the world banking elite. We on the other hand have the FED.

[maripaul-2009]

two comments: 1) the financial super agency in my opinion will as a credit management specialist. I hope that people remember the reason for credit management. This is way overdue.
2) executuve compensation. This is one of the biggest disease in the US. Does ANY executive have more responsibilities, oversees such numbers of employees than our President. In my book NO executive should receive greater remuneration that our President. Actually if you look at Costco and how their executices are compensated. The rest of America should take a hard look at this.