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.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 04/28/2010 8:21pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    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.”

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 04/30/2010 3:02pm

    “I will say that I’ve never understood greed.”

    Greed is not a crime. If you believe someone is greedy and don’t wish to do business with them, more power to you. Do not, however, convince the government to steal from some individual or group simply because you believe they are greedy. Stick to punishing actual crimes such as the many fraud statutes already on the books instead of inventing new subjective thought crimes.

    “a fair day’s wage”

    Who decides what is fair, you? 50.1% of the population? If I get enough people together with this goal, can I justifiably confiscate your property? Does it help if I come to the conclusion that you’re somehow greedy?

    “Homicide is heavily regulated, but…”

    You’re actually making this comparison? Unbelievable…

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 04/30/2010 6:25pm

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

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 05/01/2010 8:50am

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

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 05/01/2010 11:50am

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

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 05/01/2010 10:49pm

    It is merely a matter of motivation. You seem to suggest that we can and should somehow correct this perceived widespread greed with federal legislation such as this bill. Greed is not a justification for coercive legislation any more than having a surly demeanor. Greed alone is not and should not be a crime.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 05/02/2010 1:12pm

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 05/02/2010 6:01pm

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

  • Comm_reply
    AustinHowe 05/17/2010 7:19am

    You apparently are missing that there is a difference between greed, and running the economy of an entire nation and possibly the world into the ground. It happened. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent such occurences, although again, I maintain that a re-instatement of Glass-Steagall would be just fine.

  • Comm_reply
    btd 05/21/2010 7:37am

    Glass-Steagall would be fine in my mind. But credit rating agencies are a must. And from what I’ve read, this doesn’t even touch them!

    We’re in a marketing driven economy (push) not a market driven economy (pull). Until people wise up, they are screwed.

    And LucasFoxx, the gov’t legislates ethics all the time (Civil Rights Act, Community Reinvestment Act, Medicare, Social Security, War on Terror, the Dept of Education, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… The question is whether it’s effective or not. Racists, poor old people, terrorists, and ignorance still abound.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 06/08/2010 8:52pm

    That was my point. As you say, the gov’t (tries to) legislate ethics. Yet, as you notice, they can’t stop racism, poverty, terrorism, ignorance, nor …homicide.

    I liked Glass-Steagall. And I agree: credit ratings need to be addressed.

  • Comm_reply
    moattorney 04/29/2010 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?
    The government hasn’t been heavily “screw around” with finanical markets for over a century. Strong government involvement in financial markets begain circa 1933, and began to wane circa 1981. In the 1800’s, we had financial crises (and resulting severe recessions) once a decade or so. From `1933 to 1981, no systemic financial crises. After Reagan, Savings and Loan Crisis, Long-Term Capital Managment, Enron, and now the CDO/Derivatives/Prime Mortage Crisis.
    And don’t try blaming the CRA. The overwhelming majority of subprime loans were made by private mortgage companies like Countrywide which were not subject to the CRA.

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 04/30/2010 3:30pm

    “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.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 04/23/2010 6:19am

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

  • Comm_reply
    moattorney 04/29/2010 5:12pm

    Typically, when the SEC has forced open, transparent exchanges for financal products, the transactional costs for consumers go down, not up. The SEC made NYSE open up to electronic trading, which allowed E-Trade and others to compete against Wall Street firms who complained about the changes cutting into their profits. Transparency and open markets, as opposed to secret deals, should make derivatives and swaps cheaper as well.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 05/04/2010 6:12am

    :) 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.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 04/23/2010 6:24am

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 04/27/2010 6:24am

    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!

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Comm_reply
    SmilingAhab 01/27/2011 3:12pm

    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.

  • ctraveler_22 05/07/2010 1:48pm

    Does this bill still allow banks to invest in derivatives from other banks? I think this bill may not go to the root cause of the problem, the reason I say this is because small regional banks that worked like ideal banks, meaning they only borrowed from fed and other banks, they did not resell their loans but kept them in their books, failed. They have failed because the people have also failed and they did not have proper insurance in their book (basic derivatives). Large banks almost went under for investing so much on the derivatives market which can collapse the system. There should be some type of derivatives market that average investors, and banks can invest which would could be used in the event that defaults occur but a market with more liquidity similar to the options market. Such market could help ease lending again allow people to invest in small scale which in term would help everyone borrow, and it can help over all economy more than current stock market.

  • AustinHowe 05/17/2010 6:53am

    I support the bill, but I still think that a simple reinstatement of the Glass Steagall act could almost singularly solve the problem.

  • mazdastuff 05/17/2010 4:46pm

    I didn’t see anything about fannie or freddie. Hey Dodd, you missed the biggest theft system supported by democrats. anything in there about not allowing government to dictate the lending rules for low income, high risk individuals…nope, did not see that either.

  • vlobato9817 05/20/2010 4:47pm

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

  • uncleray 05/21/2010 4:27am

    The bureaucracy did not catch the problem earlier
    so adding a layer seems pointless.
    Bring Back Glass Steagall!!!


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