alexey Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-12-11-house-scales-back-regulation_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip WASHINGTON — The House has passed a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations that would govern Wall Street and reconfigure the power of the agencies overseeing the nation's banking system. The vote was 223-202. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Wow. That article contained a lot more information than I expected. It was all really, really, broad. But then I likely wouldn't have understood anything else. One thing did jump out at me: On Wednesday, pro-business Democrats succeeded in making it harder for states to enforce their own consumer protection rules on national banks. Under a compromise struck with Democratic leaders and Treasury officials, states would not be able to pre-empt federal consumer laws if the state law "materially" interferes with the business of banks. Frankly, I've got a real problem with this concept of industries bribing the Feds to pass legislation that makes them immune to state laws, whether it's banking laws, consumer protection, environmental law, or whatever. And it seems to be becoming more and more common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 That's all well and good but now it goes to the Senate where they will water it down with trinkets and ridiculous BS. Nothing will change, and if you believe it will, you're a fool. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 A regulatory overhaul is desperately needed, and this looks mostly good, but the entire package is too complicated for me to get my head around right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 That's all well and good but now it goes to the Senate where they will water it down with trinkets and ridiculous BS. Nothing will change, and if you believe it will, you're a fool. Sorry. Yeah! Because nothing has ever changed! No federal law has ever changed a thing about anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 That's all well and good but now it goes to the Senate where they will water it down with trinkets and ridiculous BS. Nothing will change, and if you believe it will, you're a fool. Sorry. You need a leader with integrity. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Yeah! Because nothing has ever changed! No federal law has ever changed a thing about anything! Not with this congress and all the other bozos in Washington. I can't say anything, though, because I helped elect these idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 You need a leader with integrity.:2cents: Or one with a spine. I'd like some backbone with my change, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Wow. That article contained a lot more information than I expected. It was all really, really, broad. But then I likely wouldn't have understood anything else. One thing did jump out at me: Frankly, I've got a real problem with this concept of industries bribing the Feds to pass legislation that makes them immune to state laws, whether it's banking laws, consumer protection, environmental law, or whatever. And it seems to be becoming more and more common. Do you have proof of bribery? Proof of motives? Cause it sounds to me like you are just making **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Do you have proof of bribery? Proof of motives?Cause it sounds to me like you are just making **** up. What do you get out of the Fed making laws to stop state laws if it interferes with bank revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Do you have proof of bribery? Proof of motives?Cause it sounds to me like you are just making **** up. No. I'm certain that the federal government decided to write a piece of legislation whose purpose is to render an industry immune from state consumer protection laws completely on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 No. I'm certain that the federal government decided to write a piece of legislation whose purpose is to render an industry immune from state consumer protection laws completely on their own. I don't think it renders them immune, just immune from state regulation that exceeds the federal regulation. As I read it, it makes them subject to federal regulators in a way that they were not subject to before. The law specifically creates a federal consumer protection unit. Meanwhile, individual states may not impose different regulations on the same subject if they exceed the federal standards. That way the industry just has to answer to one set of standards, not 51 separate standards. Federal preemption of state law is pretty common, and it is not always a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 No. I'm certain that the federal government decided to write a piece of legislation whose purpose is to render an industry immune from state consumer protection laws completely on their own. Or.... Maybe it is best to handle the regulation of a national industry at a national level rather than with complex and possibly contradictory laws for each state. Note that the states are not prohibited from their own regulation. they are prohibited from PRE-EMPTING FEDERAL LAW IF the state law interferes with banks. states would not be able to pre-empt federal consumer laws if the state law "materially" interferes with the business of banks. I'm all for regulating the industry. I just think we can do it without inventing a straw man and distracting ourselves from the real issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 N/M read more into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I don't think it renders them immune, just immune from state regulation that exceeds the federal regulation.As I read it, it makes them subject to federal regulators in a way that they were not subject to before. The law specifically creates a federal consumer protection unit. Meanwhile, individual states may not impose different regulations on the same subject if they exceed the federal standards. That way the industry just has to answer to one set of standards, not 51 separate standards. Please understand that I'm being humorous when I point out that "Oh, this law doesn't render the industry immune to state regulations. It only renders them immune to any state regulations which have any effect whatsoever." makes you sound like a nitpickey lawyer. Federal preemption of state law is pretty common, and it is not always a bad thing. Sorry. I fail to conceive of any legitimate reason why the feds should be making it illegal for a state to make something illegal within their own state. (OK, if the state law violates the US Constitution, then I can see it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Maybe the states should secede. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Please understand that I'm being humorous when I point out that "Oh, this law doesn't render the industry immune to state regulations. It only renders them immune to any state regulations which have any effect whatsoever." makes you sound like a nitpickey lawyer. Sorry. I fail to conceive of any legitimate reason why the feds should be making it illegal for a state to make something illegal within their own state. I'm only sounding nitpicky because you are misunderstanding me. The Feds are taking over the regulation and imposing national standards on something that is essentially a national industry. It is reasonable to tell that industry: "You are going to have to answer to this federal agency and follow these uniform federal rules - in exchange, we will free you from following 50 different states' rules on the same subject." This is not a new idea. Federal preemption applies in a lot of other areas already. Remember, when something is regulated by the states, you get a "rush to the bottom" where the indistries seek out the states with the most favorable regulation. Like credit card companies do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Or.... Maybe it is best to handle the regulation of a national industry at a national level rather than with complex and possibly contradictory laws for each state.Note that the states are not prohibited from their own regulation. they are prohibited from PRE-EMPTING FEDERAL LAW IF the state law interferes with banks. Note Predicto's post. Their definition of "PRE-EMPTING FEDERAL LAW" (near as I can tell) is "passing any legislation that makes anything illegal that wasn't already illegal, or having any law on the books prior to the federal law which is in any way tougher than the federal law which came later". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Note Predicto's post. Their definition of "PRE-EMPTING FEDERAL LAW" (near as I can tell) is "passing any legislation that makes anything illegal that wasn't already illegal, or having any law on the books prior to the federal law which is in any way tougher than the federal law which came later". Yes. That is correct. Otherwise, the industry faces 51 different sets of regulators, rather than just one. These really are national industries. "Sorry Wells Fargo, your billboard is perfectly valid under 49 state laws and federal regulators told you that it was just fine, but it does not satisfy the 13 point type that a single jury in Nachez, Mississippi thinks should have been used for the last sentence of the disclaimer. Pay up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Remember, when something is regulated by the states, you get a "rush to the bottom" where the indistries seek out the states with the most favorable regulation. Like credit card companies do. Only in some situations. For example, I'll point out that right now, (as I understand it), mortgages in Florida are subject to Florida law. Regardless of where the bank chooses to locate their corporate headquarters. (In fact, if this "rush to the bottom" applied to this industry right now, they wouldn't be paying the feds to exempt them from state regulations. They'd already be exempt.) (No, I'll freely admit that I don't know why Florida would have the authority to regulate Florida mortgages, (and, to pick another example, Florida insurance), but not to regulate Florida credit cards. In fact, I wonder why that is, that they can regulate one but not the other.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yes. That is correct. Otherwise, the industry faces 51 different sets of regulators, rather than just one. All of which they are complying with, right now. Also pointing out that your argument would say that our nation should do away with all state laws, altogether. Since, after all, it's so much simpler for all citizens to only have to know one set of laws. Or does this reasoning only apply to big businesses (who have power in Washington)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.