S.3217 - Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail," to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. view all titles (26)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail," to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Official: A original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Short: Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Financial Stability Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Financial Stability Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Short: Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Official: An original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes. as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 31-60 of 66 total comments.

grant3719 04/28/2010 8:40am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to justamick Apr 19, 2010 7:25am

I would like to add, I don’t care how much mony any of you have invested in any market any damm where. That ain’t my problem. Like the man said “let them fail”!!!

christinemont 04/28/2010 7:20am
Link Reply
+ -1

sounds like the goverement is bloating a bit more. they all ready took over student loans with healthcare. and there is so many loop holes in this bill. i dont believe it will stop the bailouts. it’s giving the goverment more power, and deverting attention from furture bailouts.

nmeagent 04/27/2010 3:39pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Apr 27, 2010 1:29am

Ah yes, of course that would be utterly horrible. We’d have individuals privately contracting with one another for mutual benefit without the involvement of government! What a wreck unrestrained economic liberty would do to social justice alone! My my, I’m all at sea; I’d better have a lie down.

You’ve missed my point. Explain to me how you justify implicitly blaming unbridled capitalism for the current financial crisis and the potential loss of your life savings when the government has been heavily screwing around with the financial markets for over a century.

scandalex 04/27/2010 10:54am

I’m all for financial reform but lets take a step back and breathe for a little while. Something doesn’t smell right about this bill and I think this bill (or a version of it) should be saved for another day.

mjbanks 04/27/2010 8:46am
Link Reply
+ -3

Nothing is ‘too big to fail’, unskilled inept workers were too big to fail and Dodd bailed them out, (the banks were forced to make the predatory loans), which fucked us all for many years, than he wants transparency of financial institutions so that people who know nothing of business can be a bane to the free market, businesses big and small are walking on a fiscally retarded government, barely doing their best to stay afloat without Dodd breaking the ice. he wants to see what’s inside his piggy bank, in case he needs to break it open. Dodd is a fucktard, fire him, impeach him.

the bigger they are the harder they fall, from chaos comes order, if Dodd cant pick up the pieces when a business falls, than why should he get transparency that the secret service gets?

pramsey 04/27/2010 6:24am
in reply to mliu Apr 26, 2010 10:43pm

In my experience the practical definition of “compromise” is that : I don’t get exactly what I want, you don’t either, no-one gets what they want and in the end no-one wins, everyone loses!

LucasFoxx 04/27/2010 1:29am
in reply to nmeagent Apr 26, 2010 7:24pm

“We haven’t had anything close to unrestrained capitalism since the 19th century.”

Thankfully.

mliu 04/26/2010 10:43pm

Why does congress continue to insist on “compromising” bills with endless exemptions and exceptions. I am in strong disfavor of creating these sweetly titled monstrosities that does nothing but cloud the problems they are meant to resolve. When will we learn to focus and pass bills solely for issues at hand?

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146428/speculating_banks_still_rule_—_ten_ways_dems_and_dodd_are_failing_on_financial_reform

AverageJoe 04/26/2010 8:47pm
Link Reply
+ -1

I am from my name not a financial wizard, nor do I pretend to be but, from the summary, what I got out of it is the government will create more agencies and the Federal reserve gets to regulate them. Question, who regulates the Federal reserve? from what I have read elsewhere, they aren’t audited externally. They will get to change banking policy with just a vote from them, skipping congress?? So, is this really something that we want to do, give the banking power all to the federal reserve and not to the elected officials? Is this ‘fund’ another fund that we will borrow from like Social Security and write an IOU to. I mean, congress messes up enough as it is, I can’t see just turning all of the banking over to the Fed with non-elected officials.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

dusrus 04/26/2010 9:51am
in reply to dusrus Apr 19, 2010 1:40pm

I stand corrected Opencongress.org has taken the time to answer me. http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1839—50-Billion-Liquidation-Fund-is-for-Killing-Sick-Mega-Banks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenCongressCongressGossipBlog+%28Open+Congress+Blog%29

Thanks open congress, helpful as always,

~Dusrus

justamick 04/23/2010 6:24am
in reply to justamick Apr 23, 2010 6:17am

To illustrate this effect, insurers collect premiums from customers in return for a promise to pay a possible future claim. During the time between the collection of premiums and the claims payout, the insurer takes those premium dollars and invests them in order to ensure that funds exist to pay later arising claims. By limiting an insurer’s investments to government securities, that insurer may not be able to generate the income necessary to continue offering its products at affordable rates. This could then result in the need to charge higher premiums on policies and pay less favorable rates on annuities.

justamick 04/23/2010 6:19am
in reply to justamick Apr 23, 2010 6:17am

For some of us who use insurance companies like this, this could mean more out of pocket costs to the consumer.

justamick 04/23/2010 6:17am

The “Volcker Rule,” as drafted in Section 619 gives regulators the discretion to limit & prohibit some investment activities of financial services companies. In particular, this bill directs regulators to prohibit government insured depository institutions from engaging in “proprietary trading,” whereby a company trades for its own account. However, the reach of the bill extends beyond the bounds of a depository institution to its affiliates & subsidiaries. For insurers that own banks or thrifts, this could mean that all of the investment activity essential to the running of the insurance operations would be significantly limited to investment in only government securities, despite these operations already being heavily regulated by state insurance regulators. The result would be that products that require more robust investments to support them would be limited to government securities, which do not earn enough to keep the cost of such products affordable.

LucasFoxx 04/22/2010 9:15pm

I want this. I’ve worked hard all my whole life building a portfolio I can retire on. I don’t want to lose my life savings because a handful of greedy f#₵k$ can crash the system and parachute out. That’s a risk I don’t want to take. I’m not rich enough to have money sheltered overseas. Without some protection, we are at the point where the only safe investments seem to be in mattresses or a hole in the backyard. I suppose we could just liquidate everything and put it in FDIC insured accounts. Where will capitalism go when people don’t trust the system enough to capitalize it? These corporations are free to use our investments to drown out our freedom of speech with their “freedom of speech” in elections. If congress doesn’t act now, we may never get another chance at protection from the greed of these people.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

catelong 04/22/2010 9:04am

Learn more about the issues in financial reform at Riski, the open source platform for financial market reform:

Break up banks — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Break_up_banks

Resolution authority — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Resolution_authority

Derivatives — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Derivatives

Credit rating agencies — http://freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Credit_rating_agencies

Filtered Comment [ show ]

justamick 04/22/2010 5:44am
in reply to justamick Apr 19, 2010 7:25am

Giving the government the power to break up a company that has become to large is a power that they should not have and it is a direct contradiction to the idea of a “Free Market” and Capitolism.

The idea of prosecuting fraudlent acts should be prosecuted as no one.. NO ONE is above the law.

Something many people are missing here is that this “Fund” is being funded by the company’s themselves… But where do they get that money from? That’s right! The consumer! What ever extra taxes that the government will inevitably impose on banks and business to contribute to this fund will ultimately be passed onto the CONSUMER otherwise know as the American Tax Payer!

So, remove the fund, and remove the ability for the government to step in and break up a business and then we’ve got ourselves a bill I would favor.

deborahg6 04/21/2010 6:25pm

Also, now that Goldman Sachs is in question…will the President give his $1,000,000 campaign donation back?

deborahg6 04/21/2010 6:22pm

Here’s how we end financial bail outs: Congress, let them fail. Don’t overstep the boundaries of the Constitution. It wasn’t your responsibility in the first place.

Here’s how we deal with regulations: When a company commits a fraudulent act, prosecute them. Fraud is already illegal.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

dusrus 04/19/2010 1:40pm
in reply to polcat Apr 18, 2010 12:01pm

Hm, what makes you say that. My understanding is there is a fund, funded by the banks themselves to bailout the large banks.
so it doesn’t impact taxes and it just means they have to bal themselves out not the government. correct me if I am wrong, please.

pramsey 04/19/2010 8:05am
in reply to justamick Apr 19, 2010 7:25am

Amen, not to mention that the fact that Dodd and Franks are the two heads of finance commitiees (in the Senate and House respectively) that should have been able to prevent this mess in the first place. Now they are actually compounding the problem.

justamick 04/19/2010 7:25am
Link Reply
+ -1

I love the fact that the Obama Administration and Senator Dodd both claim that this bill ends financial bail-outs. But yet this bill creates a fund that is funded by liquidated business to bail out “too big to fail” businesses.

Here’s an idea… If a company’s management mis manages a company, LET them fail. It’s their fault, their mistakes it’s time to hold them accountable.

It is not our government’s place to step in and “bail out” a company that practices poor business management and accounting practices.

pramsey 04/19/2010 6:02am
in reply to vlobato9817 Apr 16, 2010 6:38am

I am learning, as time goes by, that the “Transparency” that they are referring to is actually “We (congress) are going to lay it all out on the table in plane view, do what we want, and damn what the people want”

TBSchemer 04/19/2010 12:21am

So, this bill ends taxpayer bailouts of “too big to fail” companies by letting the government force companies to dissolve before they dissolve on their own? How is this a good idea?

This bill doesn’t end bailouts- it makes them official policy. A better summary would state that the bill ends the need for future bailout bills by letting the President and his appointees start buying out and bailing out without worrying about silly things like congressional approval.

This bill is H.R. 4173 2nd edition. Dodd is insane if he thinks the Consumer Protection Agency in the original resolution was the only real problem with it. http://tbschemer.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/government-buyouts-and-bailouts-to-become-permanent-policy/

Filtered Comment [ show ]


Vote on This Bill

31% Users Support Bill

165 in favor / 362 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments