These are the death panels. They weren't for old ladies in the health bill; they were for big banks in the financial reform bill.
Barney Frank
The Public Record
Barney Frank is a former U.S. Representative from Massachusetts, serving from 1981 to 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he was known for his progressive stance on various issues, including financial regulation and LGBT rights. Frank played a significant role in the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which aimed to prevent the kind of financial crisis that occurred in 2008. He was also one of the first openly gay members of Congress, advocating for LGBTQ+ rights throughout his career.
If that is the case, it does seem to me that responsibility should be broadly shared.
And I think this is a problem not of the regulators but of the private sector--and of the British, because this was a British association.
These were not bad guesses about derivatives. This was not overconfidence about mortgages. This was conscious deception in their own self-interest.
The most important issue, it seems to me, regarding municipal finance is one that we took some steps to dealing with...
I am struck by what seems to me to be a nice irony in the title, 'Who's in Your Wallet?'
Yes it is true if the SEC was given only what the President asked for, they wouldn't be able to do as much as they should.
We should not be--we have a Federal statutory authority here that we have given to the SEC, and when we talk about how to share that, we should not share the States' role and subject the States to this role without their full participation.
And let's be very clear, this is a recognition of the important interaction between the private market and a public element of regulation.
I think it is deeply regrettable that fiscal constraints drive some of this, and when people are critical of the agencies they ought to factor in what is inadequate funding on the part of the Congress.
The fact that the American institution is doing this overseas is no reason to say they're not subject to regulation.
The danger would be none of this is $2 billion, but if they lost so much that they couldn't pay their debts, that's why I say we begin with the requirement they keep more capital.
Well, they just lost $2 billion. They just lost about five times that or four times that through their own errors.
First, I want to say to a certain extent he's right. He's a good CEO and it is a well run bank. That's precisely why we need regulation.
No, we have things in place that will prevent that from happening. It is a reminder, however, that it was important that we adopt the rules we adopted, that mean 2008 can't happen again or unlikely to happen again and those who said, oh…
We say, even the smartest of you, you're doing things that are so inherently risky, you have got to be better protected.
We want you to have more capital. We want -- here is what we said in the bill, to a great extent. We want you to be better prepared in case you make mistakes.
It won't -- the danger would be not if this is $2 billion, but if they lost so much that they couldn't pay their debts.
Well, first, I want to say, to a certain extent, he's right. He's a good CEO and it is a well-run bank. That's precisely why we need regulation. In other words, what he's telling us is, even in a very well-run institution, as his is…





