NYT: Both White House and R's oppose requiring big banks to spin off their derivatives trading

[flpoljunkie]

(Some Democrats oppose this, as well. Mark Warner, for one.)

Bill on Finance Wins Approval of Senate Panel
By EDWARD WYATT and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Published: April 21, 2010

The bill would require most derivative contracts to be traded on a public exchange and to be processed, or cleared, through a third party to guarantee payment if one of the parties to a trade went out of business. Inability to make such payments was a big factor in the failure of the American International Group, which needed a $180 billion bailout.

The derivatives bill also would require most big banks and Wall Street firms to spin off their derivatives trading into a separate subsidiary, a move that Mrs. Lincoln said would protect small banks from speculation in derivatives by big Wall Street banks.

That provision is opposed, however, by the larger banks as well as the Obama administration and therefore could emerge as a Democratic bargaining chip in trying to get Republicans to sign on to the larger bill.

Republicans expressed some confidence that they would eliminate that provision as well as the $50 billion fund, which supporters said was intended to ensure that taxpayers were not asked to finance future bailouts. Republicans have criticized it as “a bailout fund.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/22regulate.html?ref=politics

[Captain Hilts]

1. Ugh!

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. At what point will it become obvious that the Obama White House

is as "owned" by big business as any GOP controlled WHite House?

I predict another huge scam is in the works that will allow the Titans of Wall Street to avoid any prosecutions for the fraud committed iin the last decade AND that they will be allowed to continue their criminal ways unfettered. In short, prepare yourselves for another corporate giveaway bill that will be trumpeted as "change".

[Aramchek]

7. when monkies fly out of your ass, most likely

[Kdillard]

3. I am going to wait for some actual quotes from the White House and named

Sources.

[shraby]

4. If I recall correctly, it was the NYTimes that took us so blithely

into war with unnamed sources..need I say more?

[uponit7771]

5. ANOTHER nyt hit piece with CLAIMS and NO PROOF!!!

I dont beleive thesse guys for nothin....

[Jennicut]

6. Per the Wall St. Journal on April 19th:

"The Obama administration wants tighter scrutiny of banks that offer derivatives but doesn't like Ms. Lincoln's outright ban, as it could ignite a backlash from those who say this would cut off access to credit." It does not say they would oppose her plan. The NYT is not really being factual. However, I think Obama does not have to worry, they are not offering us credit now anyway!http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575188370907250384.html?mod=article-outset-box

[ClarkUSA]

8. Here are the facts that this NYT reporter ignored in favor of Faux News insinuation:

The WH sees another means to the same end of regulating derivatives.

President Obama believes that financial institutions can own these derivative desks as long as the derivative swaps are transparent and on exchanges: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1474923733&play=1

Here are more facts about the Wall Street reform bill as per White House Economic Advisor Austan Goolsbee during an interview with PBS regarding derivatives: http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/white_house_economic_adviser_austan_goolsbee_100416