Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved

[Cigar]

The Bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.

A year ago, Mother Jones reported that a House bill that would allow banks like Citigroup to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money was written almost entirely by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill passed the House in October 2013, but the Senate never voted on it. For months, it was all but dead. Yet on Tuesday night, the Citi-written bill resurfaced. Lawmakers snuck the measure into a massive 11th-hour government funding bill that congressional leaders negotiated in the hopes of averting a government shutdown. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation.

"This is outrageous," says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "This is to benefit big banks, bottom line."

As I reported last year, the bill eviscerates a section of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act called the "push-out rule":Banks hate the push-out rule…because this provision will forbid them from trading certain derivatives (which are complicated financial instruments with values derived from underlying variables, such as crop prices or interest rates). Under this rule, banks will have to move these risky trades into separate non-bank affiliates that aren't insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are less likely to receive government bailouts. The bill would smother the push-out rule in its crib by permitting banks to use government-insured deposits to bet on a wider range of these risky derivatives.

The Citi-drafted legislation will benefit five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions control more than 90 percent of the $700 trillion derivatives market. If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/citigroup-side-by-side_0.png

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists





Next Up: People complaining about Bank Executives using Tax-Payer to Bail-Out Money for Big Bankers Bonuses

Congratulations on going Backwards ... :thumbsup20: Winning :pointlaugh:

[Crepitus]

Fucking sellouts. Bought and paid for, every damn one of them.

[Cigar]

$#@!ing sellouts. Bought and paid for, every $#@! one of them.

I say until we EXPOSE the REAL Politicians who ALLOWED this to happen, they will DENY the TRUTH

[Mr. Freeze]

I say until we EXPOSE the REAL Politicians who ALLOWED this to happen, they will DENY the TRUTH

I doubt you want that since your guy in the White House has been in bed with Goldman since 2008. They're #3 on the derivatives list.

[Cigar]

I doubt you want that since your guy in the White House has been in bed with Goldman since 2008. They're #3 on the derivatives list.

Nice try ... But Obama didn't Write or Offer the Bill ... maybe yo want to reload. :grin:

[hanger4]

I say until we EXPOSE the REAL Politicians who ALLOWED this to happen, they will DENY the TRUTH

One's already exposed, Obama, he's ready to sign just get it to his desk.

Now what Cigar ?? Oh wait, I know what, you'll ignore that part.

[Mr. Freeze]

Nice try ... But Obama didn't Write or Offer the Bill ... maybe yo want to reload. :grin:

OH because they don't all collude and appoint and talk to each other. Obama lives in a locked room with no phone. Jesus, you get a clue, dude.

Who's his recent nominee? Yeh. That's right.

[Cigar]

One's already exposed, Obama, he's ready to sign just get it to his desk.

Now what @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) ?? Oh wait, I know what, you'll ignore that part.

The President is Compromising ... I disagree with his Compromise, but no one can say he isn't.

Now back to the Subject; because The President of The United Sates did WRITE THIS BILL, so deflecting only shows you're afraid of the people who actually did Write it.

[Cigar]

OH because they don't all collude and appoint and talk to each other. Obama lives in a locked room with no phone. Jesus, you get a clue, dude.

Who's his recent nominee? Yeh. That's right.

This Thread is about a House Bill ... care to comment on it or deflect to The President for cover? :laugh:

[Mr. Freeze]

The President is Compromising ... I disagree with his Compromise, but no one can say he isn't.

Now back to the Subject; because The President of The United Sates did WRITE THIS BILL, so deflecting only shows you're afraid of the people who actually did Write it.

It's not a fucking deflection, dude. It is the truth of the actual situation and that is every single person in government today is in some way shape or form on the take and in the pocket of bankers.

If you think, "Not my guy!" You're wrong. Yes, your guy, too.

[Mister D]

It's not a $#@!ing deflection, dude. It is the truth of the actual situation and that is every single person in government today is in some way shape or form on the take and in the pocket of bankers.

If you think, "Not my guy!" You're wrong. Yes, your guy, too.


Cigar struggles with the concept of deflection.

[Cigar]

Step One

[Cigar]

Your Running Shoes

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608049648742567415&pid=1.7

[Mr. Freeze]

Were you dropped on your head as a kid? Sometimes that causes your problem.

[Common Sense]

A lot of legislation is written by industry. What do we think all those lobbyists are doing?

[Cigar]

It's a Wonderful Deal for The Big Banks, because they receive all the "upsides" with Zero Risk for the "downsides" ... The American People can away pay for the CEO's Bonuses.

The reason why President Obama went for this deal is because he got increased funding for 11 out of 12 Federal Agencies. The 12'th that didn't get the increase funding was Homeland Security, because the GOP is going to use Homeland Security as leverage to go after Immigration Reform and Obama's Executive Order.

Now we all know why Obama is going to sign it, because he know for sure those other 11 Federal Agencies won't get funding with the next Congress begins in a few weeks.

I still say Shut The Mother Down

[nic34]

Funny how there are virtually no conservative voices denouncing this.

The bill—sponsored by two Dems and two Republicans—passed easily out of the House financial services committee on a 53-to-6 vote (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/derivatives-bill-house-financial-services-committee-pass). The six no votes came from Democrats. In October 2013, the measure passed (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/citigroup-bill-passes-house) the Republican-controlled House 292 to 122. Seventy Dems (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll569.xml) voted in favor, but that was far fewer than expected (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/citigroup-bill-passes-house), partly due to press coverage of Citi's involvement in the bill's drafting.

Back then, the bill's chances of becoming law seemed dim. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew voiced his opposition to the measure, saying (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/hr-992_n_4178116.html) it would be "disruptive and harmful." Obamasignaled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/hr-992_n_4178116.html) to lawmakers that he opposed it. It never came up for a vote in the Senate.

And the legislation was left on the table for corporate-friendly lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to now sneak into the pending spending bill. But Democratic leadership is raising concerns (http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-house-dems-troubled-provisions-2015-omnibus/) about the Wall Street-friendly provision. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blasted out a statement Wednesday morning slamming the provision for allowing "big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC." And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling on the House to strike the Citi-written language from the spending bill.

"I am disgusted," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House financial services committee, said in a statement. "Congress is risking our homes, jobs and retirement savings once again."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) issued an even more dire warning, calling the bill "a good example of capitalism's death wish."

http://progressivevoices.com/citigroup-wrote-the-wall-street-giveaway-congress-just-snuck-into-a-must-pass-spending-bill/

[Cigar]

Wall Street’s Win on Swaps Rule Shows Washington ResurgenceWall Street is re-emerging as a force in Washington as it closes in on one of its biggest wins against regulation since the financial crisis.

With must-pass spending legislation making its way through Congress this week, banks seized on an opportunity to attach a measure that would halt a planned restriction on derivatives trading they had long opposed. The industry’s lobbying extended to the highest levels of finance with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon pressing lawmakers to support the change.

Wall Street’s success, after four years of struggling to persuade Congress to ease the Dodd-Frank Act, is a precursor to more fights next year against some of the law’s hallmarks: the consumer protection bureau and stiff oversight of big financial companies whose failure could threaten the financial system.

“The Wall Street interests -- the big banks -- they’re back,” said Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-12/wall-street-s-win-on-swaps-rule-shows-resurgence-in-washington.html

[Chris]

A lot of legislation is written by industry. What do we think all those lobbyists are doing?


You mean like the ACA by insurance companies.

Our government's in bed with business.

What's surprising is that that's surprising to some.

[Cigar]

Funny how there are virtually no conservative voices denouncing this.

The bill—sponsored by two Dems and two Republicans—passed easily out of the House financial services committee on a 53-to-6 vote (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/derivatives-bill-house-financial-services-committee-pass). The six no votes came from Democrats. In October 2013, the measure passed (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/citigroup-bill-passes-house) the Republican-controlled House 292 to 122. Seventy Dems (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll569.xml) voted in favor, but that was far fewer than expected (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/citigroup-bill-passes-house), partly due to press coverage of Citi's involvement in the bill's drafting.

Back then, the bill's chances of becoming law seemed dim. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew voiced his opposition to the measure, saying (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/hr-992_n_4178116.html) it would be "disruptive and harmful." Obamasignaled (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/hr-992_n_4178116.html) to lawmakers that he opposed it. It never came up for a vote in the Senate.

And the legislation was left on the table for corporate-friendly lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to now sneak into the pending spending bill. But Democratic leadership is raising concerns (http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-house-dems-troubled-provisions-2015-omnibus/) about the Wall Street-friendly provision. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) blasted out a statement Wednesday morning slamming the provision for allowing "big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC." And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is calling on the House to strike the Citi-written language from the spending bill.

"I am disgusted," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House financial services committee, said in a statement. "Congress is risking our homes, jobs and retirement savings once again."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) issued an even more dire warning, calling the bill "a good example of capitalism's death wish."

http://progressivevoices.com/citigroup-wrote-the-wall-street-giveaway-congress-just-snuck-into-a-must-pass-spending-bill/



... and you won't hear a peep out of them either ... just the people on this Forum defending them :laugh:

[Chris]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=palatino linotype]Funny how there are virtually no conservative voices denouncing this.[I]

...


Funny how Obama wants to sign it.

[Cigar]

Funny how Obama wants to sign it.

POST 16


The reason why President Obama went for this deal is because he got increased funding for 11 out of 12 Federal Agencies. The 12'th that didn't get the increase funding was Homeland Security, because the GOP is going to use Homeland Security as leverage to go after Immigration Reform and Obama's Executive Order.

Now we all know why Obama is going to sign it, because he know for sure those other 11 Federal Agencies won't get funding with the next Congress begins in a few weeks.

Try to keep up

[Chris]

POST 16



Try to keep up



It's hard to keep up with your spin, cigar, makes me dizzy trying.

[PolWatch]

This is just another example of value received for money spent. The banks donated to the candidates (all of them) and they now get the favors. The best government money can buy!

[Cigar]

It's hard to keep up with your spin, cigar, makes me dizzy trying.

So are you in agreement or not?

Are the Banks Screwing us with the help of the People Offering Bills?

[nic34]

This is just another example of value received for money spent. The banks donated to the candidates (all of them) and they now get the favors. The best government money can buy!

That's why after the election results of 2014 no one should be surprised.

[Bob]

Fucking sellouts. Bought and paid for, every damn one of them.

Banks pay the FDIC premium so there are no public moneys used to pay for bank failures.

This is just lies by Democrats.

https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/

Customers know, when they see the FDIC sign, that they will get back all of their insured deposits in the unlikely event their insured bank or savings association should fail.
What is a bank failure?

A bank failure is the closing of a bank by a federal or state banking regulatory agency. Generally, a bank is closed when it is unable to meet its obligations to depositors and others. This brochure deals with the failure of "insured banks." The term "insured bank" means a bank insured by FDIC, including banks chartered by the federal government as well as most banks chartered by the state governments. An insured bank must display an official FDIC sign at each teller window.
What is FDIC's role in a bank failure?

In the event of a bank failure, the FDIC acts in two capacities. First, as the insurer of the bank's deposits, the FDIC pays insurance to the depositors up to the insurance limit. Second, the FDIC, as the "Receiver" of the failed bank, assumes the task of selling/collecting the assets of the failed bank and settling its debts, including claims for deposits in excess of the insured limit.
What is the purpose of FDIC deposit insurance?

The FDIC protects depositors' funds in the unlikely event of the financial failure of their bank or savings institution. FDIC deposit insurance covers the balance of each depositor's account, dollar-for-dollar, up to the insurance limit, including principal and any accrued interest through the date of the insured bank's closing.
What is the FDIC insurance amount?

The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each ownership category. This includes principal and accrued interest and applies to all depositors of an insured bank.
Deposits in separate branches of an insured bank are not separately insured. Deposits in one insured bank are insured separately from deposits in another insured bank.
Deposits maintained in different categories of legal ownership at the same bank can be separately insured. Therefore, it is possible to have deposits of more than $250,000 at one insured bank and still be fully insured. For more information on deposit insurance coverage, see the FDIC's brochure "Your Insured Deposits" which can be accessed athttp://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/brochures/your_insured_deposits-english.html (https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/brochures/your_insured_deposits-english.html)
Who does the FDIC insure?

Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance on a deposit. A depositor does not have to be a citizen, or even a resident of the United States. FDIC insurance only protects depositors, although some depositors may also be creditors or shareholders of an insured bank.
What does FDIC deposit insurance cover?

FDIC insurance covers deposits received at an insured bank. Types of deposit products include checking, NOW, and savings accounts, money market deposit accounts (MMDA), and time deposits such as certificates of deposit (CDs).
What is the source of funding used by the FDIC to pay insured depositors of a failed bank?

The FDIC's deposit insurance fund consists of premiums already paid by insured banks and interest earnings on its investment portfolio of U.S. Treasury securities. No federal or state tax revenues are involved.
How am I notified when my bank has been closed?

The FDIC notifies each depositor in writing using the depositor's address on record with the bank. This notification is mailed immediately after the bank closes.
When the failed bank is acquired by another bank; the assuming bank also notifies the depositors. This notification usually is mailed with the first bank statement after the assumption.
Every effort also is made to inform the public through the news media, town meetings, and notices posted at the bank.

[del]

Were you dropped on your head as a kid? Sometimes that causes your problem.

i think it was a mistaken belief that lead paint chips are a snack food.

[Mr. Freeze]

POST 16



Try to keep up


Oh sure that's the reason. Hey, I have some great property in Florida to sell you.

[del]

It's a Wonderful Deal for The Big Banks, because they receive all the "upsides" with Zero Risk for the "downsides" ... The American People can away pay for the CEO's Bonuses.

The reason why President Obama went for this deal is because he got increased funding for 11 out of 12 Federal Agencies. The 12'th that didn't get the increase funding was Homeland Security, because the GOP is going to use Homeland Security as leverage to go after Immigration Reform and Obama's Executive Order.

Now we all know why Obama is going to sign it, because he know for sure those other 11 Federal Agencies won't get funding with the next Congress begins in a few weeks.

I still say Shut The Mother Down

you misspelled * he know (sic) for sure which side his bread is buttered on and so do the 57 dems who helped push it through.


put down the pom-poms, buckwheat

[Mr. Freeze]

At what fucking point do people realize that all these assholes are bought? There is no difference anymore.

[Bob]

So are you in agreement or not?

Are the Banks Screwing us with the help of the People Offering Bills?

You guys are whining about nothing.

The FDIC is entirely funded by the banks, not bu the public.

[nic34]

Banks pay the FDIC premium so there are no public moneys used to pay for bank failures.

This is just lies by Democrats

You tell 'em bob....

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Bob]

The President is Compromising ... I disagree with his Compromise, but no one can say he isn't.

Now back to the Subject; because The President of The United Sates did WRITE THIS BILL, so deflecting only shows you're afraid of the people who actually did Write it.

Why don't all the complainers learn how banks actually work?

I posted how the FDIC works. And it's nonsense to say taxpayers pay for the FDIC insurance.

[Mr. Freeze]

Why don't all the complainers learn how banks actually work?

I posted how the FDIC works. And it's nonsense to say taxpayers pay for the FDIC insurance.

Where does the insurance settlement come from if the banks fail Bob? You know how this works.

[Bob]

Where does the insurance settlement come from if the banks fail @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)? You know how this works.

First, too may blab about derivatives as if they understand them. It is the blind leading the blind. Cigar is blind to be kind to him. If he understood derivatives I would have said he lies.

FDIC has no tax money in it. As it is right now, if you have over $250,000 in one bank, anything more than that is not insured.

This law has nothing to do with your bank failing. Good god, this is easy to learn.

[Mr. Freeze]

First, too may blab about derivatives as if they understand them. It is the blind leading the blind. Cigar is blind to be kind to him. If he understood derivatives I would have said he lies.

FDIC has no tax money in it. As it is right now, if you have over $250,000 in one bank, anything more than that is not insured.

This law has nothing to do with your bank failing. Good god, this is easy to learn.
Bob

I asked you a question since you said that you "know" how the FDIC works. Where does the settlement money come from if say Bank of America fails?

[hanger4]

The President is Compromising ... I disagree with his Compromise, but no one can say he isn't.

Now back to the Subject; because The President of The United Sates did WRITE THIS BILL, so deflecting only shows you're afraid of the people who actually did Write it.

I don't like the "Compromisng" either and nobody's deflecting. When Obama signs this CR into law he owns it. And you'll continue to ignore that truth.

[Chris]

So are you in agreement or not?

Are the Banks Screwing us with the help of the People Offering Bills?


The government's screwing us, the banks taking advantage of the political means government offers to our wealth.

That's government left and right, Dem and Rep, Congress, president and Court, and all the little bureaucrats scurrying about at their feet.

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013)

I asked you a question since you said that you "know" how the FDIC works. Where does the settlement money come from if say Bank of America fails?

Please scroll up to post 27.

If that does not address your concern, I can try to elaborate but it comes from the FDIC

[Bob]

Some think the FDIC pays every dime of losses.

Up to $250,000, inclusive, they do pay all losses. But they have plenty of cash for the worst event.

Bear in mind, those over $250,000 will bear the brunt. But there is no provision for taxpayers to pick up the losses. Only some new law could cover that.

i am still waiting for any Democrat to feel sorry for those having more than a quarter million dollars in cash in a bank.

[Mr. Freeze]

Please scroll up to post 27.

If that does not address your concern, I can try to elaborate but it comes from the FDIC

I don't have a concern. I have an MBA and a CPA and worked in the finance industry for 5 years. You said you understood the FDIC and I asked you where the money comes from to settle the claims against bank failure for an FDIC insured bank.

Where does the money come from?

[Bob]

I don't have a concern. I have an MBA and a CPA and worked in the finance industry for 5 years. You said you understood the FDIC and I asked you where the money comes from to settle the claims against bank failure for an FDIC insured bank.

Where does the money come from?

Good, then I feel I am on more of an even keel.

It comes from the FDIC.

[Common]

The Bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.

A year ago, Mother Jones reported that a House bill that would allow banks like Citigroup to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money was written almost entirely by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill passed the House in October 2013, but the Senate never voted on it. For months, it was all but dead. Yet on Tuesday night, the Citi-written bill resurfaced. Lawmakers snuck the measure into a massive 11th-hour government funding bill that congressional leaders negotiated in the hopes of averting a government shutdown. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation.

"This is outrageous," says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "This is to benefit big banks, bottom line."

As I reported last year, the bill eviscerates a section of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act called the "push-out rule":Banks hate the push-out rule…because this provision will forbid them from trading certain derivatives (which are complicated financial instruments with values derived from underlying variables, such as crop prices or interest rates). Under this rule, banks will have to move these risky trades into separate non-bank affiliates that aren't insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are less likely to receive government bailouts. The bill would smother the push-out rule in its crib by permitting banks to use government-insured deposits to bet on a wider range of these risky derivatives.

The Citi-drafted legislation will benefit five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions control more than 90 percent of the $700 trillion derivatives market. If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/citigroup-side-by-side_0.png

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists





Next Up: People complaining about Bank Executives using Tax-Payer to Bail-Out Money for Big Bankers Bonuses

Congratulations on going Backwards ... :thumbsup20: Winning :pointlaugh:


If obama signs this, I will consider him the worst president in my lifetime.

[Bob]

Obama has been the worst president since he accepted the Nobel Peace prize before even playing the game.

Imagine we awarded the Oakland Raiders the super bowl win and they had played no games?

[Peter1469]

I expect when the democratic activists realize that their party establishment is controlled by the banks as the GOP establishment is, they will want to die of heart-break. :smiley:

[PolWatch]

I expect when the democratic activists realize that their party establishment is controlled by the banks as the GOP establishment is, they will want to die of heart-break. :smiley:

there is as much a chance of the dems admitting that as there is for the repubs to admit it...their hearts are all safe!

[donttread]

Fucking sellouts. Bought and paid for, every damn one of them.

You don't think the congressmen you pay to run things can actually be troubled to write their own legislation do you? Megacorps from tobacco to food to pharma and finance having been writing bills for a long time.
I'll say it again, no one has proven me wrong yet:
For freedom to live the megacorps must die.