Zitat des Tages über Dodd-Frank:
I'll be very clear about this: I'm not a fan of getting rid of Dodd-Frank.
I frankly think we in the financial service world believe we need appropriate kinds of regulations. No question about that. But when something like Dodd-Frank has been created, sort of in the mystery of night, it is a huge document. It's vast. It weighs about 10 pounds when I carry it around.
We support too big to fail. We want the government to be able to take down a big bank like JP Morgan and it could be done. We think Dodd-Frank, which we supported parts of, gave the FDIC the authority to take down a big bank.
There's a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. Let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect. It should have broken you into pieces.
The SEC got more than 100 rules to write under Dodd-Frank, the lion's share of all the agencies. And we've moved, I think, with a tremendous sense of urgency. But it takes a long time to write rules and get them approved by a five-member commission.
Democrats misinterpreted the mandate for change in 2008 as an ideological mandate to move the country sharply to the left. They rammed through policies like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank with little, if any, bipartisan support.
The number one problem with Dodd-Frank is it's way too complicated, and it cuts back lending, so we want to strip back parts of Dodd-Frank that prevent banks from lending, and that will be the number one priority on the regulatory side.
In the 1990s, the Democratic Party began to cozy up to their long-time enemies: Wall Street Bankers. They took their money and relaxed their regulations until the Great Recession forced the Democrats via Dodd-Frank to re-regulate the banks.
Dodd-Frank greatly expanded the regulatory reach of the Federal Reserve. It did not, however, examine whether it was correctly structured to account for these new and expansive powers. Therefore, the Committee will be examining the appropriateness of the Fed's current structure in a post Dodd-Frank world.
We need to repeal and replace Dodd-Frank. We need to make America fair again for all businesses, but especially those being run by small business owners.
If anything, one would think we learn from Brexit is we need a strong, stable banking system, not one to repeal the consumer bureau and repeal Dodd-Frank and give Wall Street what it wants. That would be the worst kind of response.
I mean, Dodd-Frank is strangling small community banks. It doesn't make any difference what the interest rate is. They're not - they're not going to loan the money because they can't make any money for one thing plus the cost of compliance.
The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's lending programs during the financial crisis.
The basic architecture of Dodd-Frank makes sense. At the same time, as a number of regulators and legislators have observed, the act was a complex effort that produced thousands of pages of rules.
We will reverse course on the heavy hand of regulation, discarding Dodd-Frank and any other regulations that advance a political agenda at the expense of jobs and investment on Main Street.
A dramatic spending increase to fund the SEC and the CFTC, as envisioned by the authors of the Dodd-Frank legislation, would further the mindset that our nation's problems can be solved with more spending, not more efficiency.
I have been working hard trying to implement Dodd-Frank reforms. We went through a terrible crisis in 2008. Many people lost their homes.
The major reform legislation, Dodd-Frank, was named after two guys bought and sold by special interests, and one of them should be shouldering a good amount of blame for the crisis.
