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.

vlobato9817 05/20/2010 4:47pm

and the federal government grows exponentially with more bureaucracies and red tape.

djezell 06/10/2010 5:13am

Nay on the Durbin Interchange amendment. Government regulation of interchange rates is not the solution in my opinion, but certainly not in this manner. Big companies like BP get to pocket the money they would normally spend on swipe charges, while the banks get stuck with the bill? Don’t be angry when the banks, in turn, slap the fees onto you as a consumer to make up the difference. Curbing people from using cards over cash to begin with doesnt sound good to me. If people use cash more often, then will have to carry more cash on them. More cash in wallets equals less cash in the bank. Less cash in the bank equals higher interest rates or service charges to make up for the difference. The less money the banks have to loan, the more interest rates will be for lending. Supply and demand.

djezell 06/10/2010 7:43am
in reply to djezell Jun 10, 2010 5:13am

S.Amdt. 3932 withdrawn. Win. One less thing to worry about for now.

juryrocket 06/18/2010 2:21pm

The very same people who helped push risky and “affordable” housing, didn’t see the bursting bubble coming at all, and have no respect or appreciation for free markets and businesses that operate therein are now going to redesign our financial system? Okay, what’s next? Tiger Woods becomes a marriage counselor? The cast of the Jersey Shore start a book club? Keith Olbermann becomes the featured speaker on the anger management tour? Here’s the real definitive guide to financial reform:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvabFm-cE9c

vlobato9817 04/16/2010 6:38am

What is this transparency everyone is talking about?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

nmeagent 04/30/2010 3:30pm
in reply to moattorney Apr 29, 2010 5:20pm

“So when Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and G Bush said that they were deregulating the financial industry, all four of them were lying?”

If you believe they mean nearly total deregulation as suggested by the rest of your comment, then yes, they were lying. Otherwise, no, though without something very close to the previous definition your comment doesn’t make any damn sense.

“Strong government involvement in financial markets begain circa 1933”

Most of it, yes. Of course that depends on what you mean by “strong”; I would argue that strong involvement began with the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 or perhaps with fixing the relative value of gold to silver in the mid 19th century.

“And don’t try blaming the CRA.”

I blame the moral hazard created by past and present government interference in the private sector.

LucasFoxx 04/30/2010 6:25pm
in reply to nmeagent Apr 30, 2010 3:02pm

“Greed is not a crime.” – I didn’t say that either.

nmeagent 05/01/2010 8:50am
in reply to LucasFoxx Apr 30, 2010 6:25pm

You insinuate this with nearly every comment you make on the subject.

LucasFoxx 05/01/2010 11:50am
in reply to nmeagent May 01, 2010 8:50am

Greed is an issue of ethics and morality. You seem to be implying that greed is good.

LucasFoxx 05/02/2010 1:12pm
in reply to nmeagent May 01, 2010 10:49pm

As I said, ”there is no way to completely protect yourself from the greed of other people.” You can’t legislate ethics, but the reason we have what consumer protections there are, is because more than “50.1%” of the time, more than “50.1%” of American voters decided they wanted protection from your greed. Furthermore, IMHO, no candidate will ever reach a higher office than the House of Representatives on a platform of “unbridled capitalism.“ Good luck with your campaign.

nmeagent 05/02/2010 6:01pm
in reply to LucasFoxx May 02, 2010 1:12pm

Alright, this is definitely going nowhere. I like that it has somehow become my greed. ;)

justamick 05/04/2010 6:12am
in reply to moattorney Apr 29, 2010 5:12pm

:) You didnt read what I said.

Moreover, I was actually referring to a specific provision within the proposed legislation itself.

If you actually read what was said you would actually understand what the true point of my statement was.

So please, dont try to make off the wall comments that do not relate to what I was highlighting in this bill.

WendyJones 05/09/2011 5:03am

I totally agree to this.. As we all know there are a lot of people that aren’t stable as everyone in every state that we go to! back pain relief

SmilingAhab 01/27/2011 3:12pm
in reply to christinemont Apr 28, 2010 7:20am

And thanks to that government takeover, I have healthcare at a reasonable rate instead of the insurance racket calling my ADHD a pre-existing condition and a school loan with a single-digit interest rate instead of 30-something percent.

LucasFoxx 04/28/2010 8:21pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to nmeagent Apr 27, 2010 3:39pm

I have no answer for the enemy agent. That is a mischaracterization of my comment.

I will say that I’ve never understood greed. All I know is a hard day’s work and trying to get a fair day’s wage. Money is required for survival, but it is just sport or a video game to some. The goal seems to be to simply grab all the coins you see. Ultimately, there is no way to completely protect yourself from the greed of other people. You just do what you can. Homicide is heavily regulated, but it hasn’t stopped people from finding new ways to kill people; intently or not. But you do what you can. Yes, there are probably fewer ways to rob people legally than illegally, but there are still a lot of fine ways to make a ton of cash deceiving people that are technically, perfectly, legal. After all, they say, “it’s not illegal until you get caught.”

Marv63095 04/16/2010 1:29pm
Link Reply
+ -1

This bill is a needed reform for consumers. Feel free to check out our analysis at www.defendyourdollars.org or http://www.defendyourdollars.org/2010/04/cus_summary_of_the_consumer_fi.html
Speak up for a strong independent Consumer Watchdog.

tduncaneu 04/16/2010 9:01am
Link Reply
+ -1

This has been a long time coming and very important. I urge both of our Senators from Massachusetts to get out in front and support this much needed reform.

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.

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”!!!

Filtered Comment [ show ]

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

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.

deborahg6 04/18/2010 4:56am
Link Reply
+ -1

Here’s the bill in a nutshell: The Federal Government will regulate everything.


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