There have been a lot of unintended consequences coming out of the Volcker Rule.

So your analysis is that, as a result of this phenomenon, we have less total output, and I think it is very clear that that means less opportunity, less prosperity.

It is not actually essential to complete that $15 billion package to have the reforms adopted by the United States.

Isn't that what it means to have a 2-percent GDP growth instead of a 3-percent GDP growth?

I do not know how we got to the place in America where work has become a terrible thing that we must unshackle people from the misery of having to be productive.

Demographics are very immutable.

And those activities are regulated now by the SEC and other--principally, but other regulators, as well, right?

I think you could argue that the September report in some ways may overstate the risks and in some ways minimizes the very extensive regulation that is already in place on asset managers.

we strongly urge the FSOC and other governing bodies not to base any policy or regulation actions grounded on the information in the OFR study . . . .

I also think that it is very important, in the context of these agreements... it has to be an important part of all of our trade agreements.

I find it ironic that, in an interest of presumably reducing risk, we adopt a Volcker Rule that, for instance, forbids banks from engaging in profitable activity.

I do not think it will help with the very largest bank holding companies.

I think it is important to understand that the solution to this problem is not to prevent by legislation any possibility of rescue.

I am wondering if actually each of you could just comment briefly, maybe we will start with Dr. Meltzer and work back.

The massive, excessive overregulation, including on the smallest banks that have absolutely no systemic importance really to the economy, are nevertheless burdened so much that it is just not feasible to launch a community bank and provide…

If you do not do that, there is not a person in the world--you know, I have been there.

I think there is a very significant likelihood that it arises mostly from Title II of Dodd-Frank.

It is important that we understand that, but it is also important to remember that is historical.

I have got a bill that repeals Title II of Dodd-Frank and make the necessary amendments to the Bankruptcy Code.

I think it compounds the problem. It does not solve the problem.

If we agree that no institution should be too big to fail, if we agree that all bailouts must end, then we must agree that we must do something about this.

what is the ability of the Federal Government to honor the commitments that it has made to current retirees and future retirees in the Social Security program?

I think we ought to defend and encourage these provisions that help people to save.

I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that somehow everything is fine for several decades because we have this nominal trust fund that we treat as though it were real assets, and it is fundamentally not.

A second point I would make is that we have to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for future generations.