The financially conservative Republicans are basically insuring the tax payers bail out the billionaire banks - again.
This is disgusting. Every American tax payer should be furious.
Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved
The bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.
—By Erika Eichelberger | Wed Dec. 10, 2014 2:27 PM ESTUpdate Friday, December 12, 2014: On Thursday night, the House passed the spending bill with the Citigroup-written provision. The Senate is expected to approve the legislation.
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.
More at the link:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/citigroup-move-headquarters-u-s-capitol-building
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The banking giant Citigroup announced on Friday that it would move its headquarters from New York to the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington, D.C., in early 2015. Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for Citi, said that the company had leased thirty thousand square feet of prime real estate on the floor of the House of Representatives and would be interviewing “world-class architects” to redesign the space to suit its needs
REMARKS: The rationale being it is easier to be right there in DC than to have to keep sending people from NY to deal with financial lobbying issues.
[Edited on 12/14/2014 by gina]
The financially conservative Republicans are basically insuring the tax payers bail out the billionaire banks - again.
This is disgusting. Every American tax payer should be furious.
Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved
The bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.
—By Erika Eichelberger | Wed Dec. 10, 2014 2:27 PM ESTUpdate Friday, December 12, 2014: On Thursday night, the House passed the spending bill with the Citigroup-written provision. The Senate is expected to approve the legislation.
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.
More at the link:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/citigroup-move-headquarters-u-s-capitol-building
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The banking giant Citigroup announced on Friday that it would move its headquarters from New York to the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington, D.C., in early 2015. Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for Citi, said that the company had leased thirty thousand square feet of prime real estate on the floor of the House of Representatives and would be interviewing “world-class architects” to redesign the space to suit its needs
REMARKS: The rationale being it is easier to be right there in DC than to have to keep sending people from NY to deal with financial lobbying issues.
[Edited on 12/14/2014 by gina]
Gina you do realize these stories you are posting are New York Magazine humour right? they are not real. The author is a comedian and if you look at the links you posted they clearly state "humor".
I am a liberal myself and agree with you on many of the subjects you post about but you really need to vet your sources before posting them as real news. 
[Edited on 12/14/2014 by Bill_Graham]
This bill really sucks; I am not a fan of ever tacking things on to legislation. But; it is not just the republicans who have given the banks free reign. Clinton repealed Glass-Steagle. Obama was notoriously easy on the banks when he took office. Every one of them was tettering on bankruptcy yet were allowed (with essentially free loans) to continue to run/ruin the show.
No its REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS. KOCH BROTHERS. FOX NEWS FOX NEWS FOX NEWS Aughhhhhhh!
Obama is not a socialist when it comes to economics. He is a corporate fascist. He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them. He does not accept the principles of the free market.
He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them.
Lobbyists from Citigroup wrote the banking section of the bill.
Who's controlling who?
He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them.
Lobbyists from Citigroup wrote the banking section of the bill.
Who's controlling who?
It is amazing how both parties have allowed the Banks to regroup and wield even greater power. And again; whatever
"Bush allowed Obama had the banks pinned to the mat and let them off scott free. They now feel entitled ("we paid back every cent" when everyone knows the real "loans" given to them were the buying of "sight unseen" trillions of dollars worth of paper for a lot more than it is worth.
Obama painted himself as a socialist.
Oak - you really disappoint me lately. I can only attribute recent lack of fact based argument to your realization that the Republican Party is giving you a good buggering.
Obama is not a socialist when it comes to economics. He is a corporate fascist. He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them. He does not accept the principles of the free market.
What is this "free market" you speak of? Six corporations own 90% of the media outlets. Most markets are lucky to have the "choice" of 2, maybe 3 content providers. Obama doesn't accept the principles of the free market!?! American capitalism doesn't recognize the principles of the free market. That ship sailed.
Obama is not a socialist when it comes to economics. He is a corporate fascist. He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them. He does not accept the principles of the free market.
What is this "free market" you speak of? Six corporations own 90% of the media outlets. Most markets are lucky to have the "choice" of 2, maybe 3 content providers. Obama doesn't accept the principles of the free market!?! American capitalism doesn't recognize the principles of the free market. That ship sailed.
The ship has NOT sailed. As long as there are still people demanding it. The point is that Obama is neither a socialist nor a capitalist.
Obama is not a socialist when it comes to economics. He is a corporate fascist. He has no problem with banks and corporations as long as the government is controlling them. He does not accept the principles of the free market.
What is this "free market" you speak of? Six corporations own 90% of the media outlets. Most markets are lucky to have the "choice" of 2, maybe 3 content providers. Obama doesn't accept the principles of the free market!?! American capitalism doesn't recognize the principles of the free market. That ship sailed.
The ship has NOT sailed. As long as there are still people demanding it. The point is that Obama is neither a socialist nor a capitalist.
It has, actually. The US has not been a free market system since, well, as long as I have been alive. When I was in college and actively studying these things (mid-80s), the closest example to a free market economy was Hong Kong, which was preparing to be turned over the communist China and that made for some very interesting conversations with a few Hong Kong natives that I knew at the time.
As for Obama, if you are right then I guess that makes him pretty much like every other politician in DC.
[Edited on 12/16/2014 by gondicar]
Yes he is. And it is why I will claim again (in a non-partisan manner) that it is the mutual stalemating of the political system (due to a greater split between the parties than I can ever remember) that is crushing legislation/lack of legislation coming out of Washington. The rift is so great there is no middle ground; what we get are hodge-podge bill like this tacked together.
I expressed my dissatisfaction to both my Democrat Senators for voting for this bill. I'm sure I'll receive replies full of platitudes and bull$hit. I called and emailed. I'm sure both Kaine and Warner will assure me it was the only way to keep the government functioning.
They both know where the bread is buttered. It ain't by the People of Virginia. We can't fund their election campaigns.
Obama painted himself as a socialist.
Oak - you really disappoint me lately. I can only attribute recent lack of fact based argument to your realization that the Republican Party is giving you a good buggering.
I don't view Obama as a Socialist. However, I understand why some folks might get that impression. Statements like "It's better when we spread the wealth around" and "You didn't build that" haven't helped the way some people perceive him..
While I submit that Obama is not a Socialist, I wouldn't necessarily call him Mr. Capitalism either.
I wouldn't necessarily call him Mr. Capitalism either.
Can you cite anything that he had done that can be labeled anti-capitalism? Anything that he has done that hurt corporations' abilities to make reap enormous profits?
What past Presidents would you call Mr. Capitalism?
I wouldn't necessarily call him Mr. Capitalism either.
Can you cite anything that he had done that can be labeled anti-capitalism? Anything that he has done that hurt corporations' abilities to make reap enormous profits?
What past Presidents would you call Mr. Capitalism?
I guess the most recent example might be Clinton. Without question, he viewed the private sector as the key player in the success of our economy.
I remember Clinton being called a lot of things but, Mr. Capitalism, wasn't one of them.
Without question, he viewed the private sector as the key player in the success of our economy.
What President hasn't? Have you looked at who makes up Obama's trusted Board of Economic Advisors?
Tell me what Obama has done that is anti-capitalism. And please show me how that action hurt this economy.
I remember Clinton being called a lot of things but, Mr. Capitalism, wasn't one of them.
Without question, he viewed the private sector as the key player in the success of our economy.
What President hasn't? Have you looked at who makes up Obama's trusted Board of Economic Advisors?
Tell me what Obama has done that is anti-capitalism. And please show me how that action hurt this economy.
1. Obama hasn't. He casts a suspicious eye at the private sector. The government is the source of prosperity.
2. How about muscling his way around bankruptcy laws, stiffing GM bondholders and FAIAP handing the company over to the UAW? That a good enough example? That's about as anti-capitalist as it gets.
How about his illegal moratorium on offshore drilling? What about destroying the coal industry? Those are right off the top of my head. There's no shortage of examples if you care to look into it a little bit.
The Government is the source of the rise in stock prices? The Government is the source of Apple's, Exxon's, Amazon's, Uber's, Netflix's, Ford's... heck, look at this chart:
I'm not aware of anything factual in your example #2. Your saying Obama is responsible for a surplus of natural gas, hence power plants converting from coal to natural gas is Obama's fault?
A moratorium on off-shore drilling? All off-shore drilling? I don't think so. I think he has opened off shore acreage to drilling. Here is one citation:
Wed, 2014-07-23 14:16STEVE HORN
Steve Horn's picture
Not Just the Atlantic: Obama Leasing Millions of Gulf Acres for Offshore DrillingDeploying the age-old “Friday news dump,” President Barack Obama's Interior Department gave the green light on Friday, July 18 to companies to deploy seismic air guns to examine the scope of Atlantic Coast offshore oil-and-gas reserves.
It is the first time in over 30 years that the oil and gas industry is permitted to do geophysical data collection along the Atlantic coast. Though decried by environmentalists, another offshore oil and gas announcement made the same week has flown under the radar: over 21 million acres of Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas reserves will be up for lease on August 20 in New Orleans, Louisiana at the Superdome.
On July 17, the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) announced the lease in the name of President Obama's “all of the above” energy policy.
“As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to continue to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, BOEM…today announced that the bureau will offer more than 21 million acres offshore Texas for oil and gas exploration and development in a lease sale that will include all available unleased areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area,” proclaimed a July 17 BOEM press release.
The release says this equates to upwards of 116-200 million barrels of oil and 538-938 billion cubic feet of natural gas and falls under the banner of the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement.
That Agreement was signed into law on December 26, 2013. It served as a precursor to the recently-passed Mexican oil and gas industry privatization reforms, which have opened the floodgates to international oil and gas companies to come into Mexico for onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration and production.
Regarding the muscling around bankruptcy laws - I don't know what that means.
Handing GM over to the UAW? Are you sure that is a correct characterization? Could you elaborate and explain to me how the UAW owns GM and who appoints the executives?
Oak - I really think you should examine your sources.
Heck. This Forbes article postulates that Obama might be the best economic President ever.
I guess it's progress that you no longer view President as a Socialist.
Way to evolve on an issue! Good on ya!
Please explain how this was a "pro-business" action. You asked for an example, right?
On the larger point, I'm left with no alternative but to assume you have not listened to any speeches Obama has made. I'm hard pressed to think of one positive comment Obama has made about the private sector.
I'd wager that negative comments somehow pertaining to inequality, unfairness, or what have you outweigh the positive by 100 to 1. That's just a guess.
Please explain how this was a "pro-business" action. You asked for an example, right?
On the larger point, I'm left with no alternative but to assume you have not listened to any speeches Obama has made. I'm hard pressed to think of one positive comment Obama has made about the private sector.
I'd wager that negative comments somehow pertaining to inequality, unfairness, or what have you outweigh the positive by 100 to 1. That's just a guess.
Really that is the best you can do? So Obama refused to lift the moratorium on Gulf drilling in the face of one of the worst oil spills in history? How about all the fishermen and other industries negatively impacted by the oil spill?
It is estimated 250K jobs were lost due t the spill.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-spills-economic-impact-mostly-local/
So you will excuse me if I don't get outraged over 400+ people being impacted by the moratorium on drilling.
Here is a little bit more balanced view of Obama's view towards business
Mr Obama wasn't looking for a reason to impose a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; in fact, he took on his party by proposing to allow more of it. But after the BP oil spill, public opinion gave him little choice.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/business
Of this one
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11378728/3/obama-outdoes-pro-business-republicans.html
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
Bingo.
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
Yeah, never mind how he portrays himself.
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
Yeah, never mind how he portrays himself.
Funny I don't think I have ever heard him say he was antibusiness. I would be interested where you heard or read he said this.
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
Yeah, never mind how he portrays himself.
Funny I don't think I have ever heard him say he was antibusiness. I would be interested where you heard or read he said this.
Does he have to? Just listen to him speak and take note past statements. If he's commenting on the subject, the odds run about 95% it's some kind of complaint. Now why on Earth would someone get the idea he's not a big fan?
I would not say he is a Pro Business lackey like the GOP but he is not antibusiness as the haters like to portray him.
Yeah, never mind how he portrays himself.
Funny I don't think I have ever heard him say he was antibusiness. I would be interested where you heard or read he said this.
Does he have to? Just listen to him speak and take note past statements. If he's commenting on the subject, the odds run about 95% it's some kind of complaint. Now why on Earth would someone get the idea he's not a big fan?
That is your opinion and since you have nothing to back it up your opinion has little to no merit.
You said he portrayed himself as a socialist. He didn't. The right did that.
You said he portrayed himself as anti-business. He didn't. The right did that.
