Biden Urges Congress to Pass Legislation Regulating Banks

Do you support imposing fines on or banning failed bank executives from working in the industry?

  • 41.9k

    Banks, even regional banks, need to have controls to assure that they can withstand a bank run without collapsing. The regional Banks have claimed that regulatory oversight was not needed and that they run their own stress stats to assure needed liquidity. Elizabeth Warren said it best. "I thought school from many years and I can assure you that an independent party has to grade exams becuase the sudents will not grade themselves objectively.".

    Regulations retracted in 2018 need to be restored and regulators need to assure that banks are complying with those regulations. Either that, or greatly increase the rates that all banks have to pay to support the FDIC deposit insurance program. I thinks tht even the well managed banks would rather have regulations enforced instead of ponying up the funds to guarantee the sanctity of depositor funds

  • 1,340
    Voted Support

    I am tired of reducing regulations on banks and then having to bail them out. Any future bailouts should be contingent on wiping out all shareholder equity and preventing the officers of any bank that gets bailed out, should be barred from working in the financial industry in any capacity. 

  • 999
    Voted Oppose

    There are already plenty of laws and regulations governing the banking industry. The SVB failure is one of oversight and lax attention by regulators. 

    Examine why California's Fed did not look closely at its portifolio of banks. Why didn't they do their job. Also since SVB had assets why did the Fed fail to supply the liquidity to bank to forestall failure.

  • 3,405

    Yes of course he should and I would put Elizabeth Warren in charge of it.  She knows more about this than any of us ever will!!!!!

  • 3,822
    Voted Support

    I work in advertising and I have worked with a lot of banks and I'm all for it!!!

    This headline caught my eye and gave me a great idea also:

    "Idaho lawmakers approve bill that would allow execution by firing squad"

    Let's put the governor of Idaho and Trump on trial in Idaho!!!

  • 694
    Voted Oppose

    Have the Federal Reserve and FDIC use current laws and regulations.  Like all industries, banking is overregulated which raises their cost of doing business which then needs to be passed on to the banks customers.  I believe the Fed and the FDIC were indirectly responsible for these bank failures due to failing to use the current regulations/laws to oversee these banks.

  • 25.3k

    Causes asks, 

    Do you support imposing fines on or banning failed bank executives from working in the industry?"

    Let's break it down:

    Do you support imposing fines on failed bank executives working in the industry?

    Absolutely yes!

    We need severe fines. Make sure any special raises, or benefits granted before the bank collapses are removed as part of the fines.

    Jail Time should also be on the table in cases of Fraud. 

    Do you support imposing banning failed bank executives from working in the industry?

    Yes, from other executive management positions.


  • 473
    Voted Support

    After the 2007/2008 meltdown of the banking system the ability for banks to make risky investments finally imploded. 

    In October 2008, a divided Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which initially provided the Treasury with approximately $700 billion to purchase "troubled assets," mostly bank shares and mortgage-backed securities. 

    SECA which should have hand the a acronym of Bend Over Taxpayers Here It Comes Again.  

    The roll back of regulations allows the banks to again do risky investments with no consequences to those making the decisions.  

    The Banking and Wall Street have time and again needed to be reeled back in starting in 1933. 

    Securities Act of 1933: Dodd-Frank amended Regulation D to exempt some securities from registration and also revised the definition of an accredited investor, removing the inclusion of a primary residence as part of an investor’s net worth.      

    9 Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Title IX of Dodd-Frank requires the creation of an Investor Advisory Committee (IAC), an Office of the Investor Advocate (OIA), and an ombudsman appointed by the OIA to target conflicts of interest within investment firms and on mutual fund advertisements and issues of accountability, executive compensation, and corporate governance. Title IX includes the establishment of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Credit Ratings and oversight of mortgage-backed securitization.10
    Investment Company Act of 1940: The Dodd-Frank Act created new oversight committees and tighter restrictions on consumer protections and disclosure policies.

    Investment Advisers Act of 1940: The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 saw changes to the registration requirements for investment advisors, affecting both independent investment advisors and hedge funds.        

    11 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Dodd-Frank added new protections for whistleblowers and financial incentives.

    Have you noticed that in our society the whistleblowers are the ones coming up short and even persecuted for informing the public of wrongdoing.  The whistleblower protect is a façade and smoke screen, Federal, state and local governments do nothing and even ham string whistleblowers.

    Now let's see how the government plans on dealing with the again collapse of banking systems. 

    Here's another item with financial problems written all over it.  

               The 2012 Stock Act;

    Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) in 2012, following more than 10 years of allegations of insider trading by members of Congress and staff.

    A decade after its passage, the STOCK Act has done little to prevent the appearance of corruption and has fallen short of ensuring that Congress is prioritizing the public over their own interests.   

    The onset of COVID-19 highlighted the shortcomings of the STOCK Act, when dozens of members of Congress from both sides of the aisle made stock transactions totaling over $150 million. The Department of Justice investigated several of these members for insider trading.

    The politicians publish financial reports which still has the smacking of getting rich at times when the market is getting ready to turn down or global unrest like military stocks and oil stocks  

    This has done nothing to slow down the politicians from getting inside information and acting on it.   

    What should happen is that when a politician comes into office their stocks go into a trust fund and no trading transactions can happen with the information they gleam by sitting on committees they chair.  Politicians need to turn over control and be monitored for suspicious selling or buying of stocks during their time in office.   Any violations should be swiftly dealt with and hefty fines (not 10%) if not lose of any monetary gain during that time period. 

    Second, term limits need to be in place along with age limits of politicians for those running for office.  
    Third, lobbyists need to be checked and limited if not banned from politics. 

    It is big business, corporations and military industrial complex that run the country and place the citizens of the US in an uncomfortable position of being left out of a fair market. 

  • 776
    Voted Support

    This should have been reinstated immediately when this president took office and my question is when this clueless idiot was signing his Bull Shit why wasn't this act in the first batch 

  • 1,479
    Voted Support

    Having been a victim of the GFC with our business back in the early 2000s, I absolutely support regulations on banks and punishment for unqualified, greedy and outright stupid bank management and their boards. There is no excuse for the ruthless manner in which these people use and abuse others peoples monies.


    Dodd Frank help control this rampant misuse of power, and never should've been repelled, but should have been strengthened. 

    I also agree with Senator Warren that the Fed-chair Powell should step down, he is causing a recession.

  • 110
    604 PRINGLE AV SP 18,

    If Biden suppoerts this act, they I would take a 2nd look to see how it benefits his position.....The left has never went after the banking culprits in the past and now by trying to nationalize the banks and litimit my bankking choices, they become crime hunters.....

  • 315
    Voted Support

    There is a huge ongoing problem with overpaid CEOS in this Country and it's epitomized by Bank CEO's and Executives.  That kind of money has a negative effect on egos and these people's sense of right and wrong, as well as their empathy...

  • 92.6k
    Voted Support

    Under UK law Directors are personally liable for mismanagement including bankruptcy. Holding boards & management personally liable would cut down on alot of mismanagement in banking and other industries (railroad derailments, nuclear power plant water contamination, etc). US law allows for reckless management where boards and managers take their large compensation packages and then walk away from companies wrecked by bad decision making to maximize personal compensation.

    "Under UK insolvency law, directors can become personally liable for the debts of the company"

  • 285
    Voted Support

    As long as bank executives walk away from the consequences of their poor decisions without penalty, bank failures will continue.  The way it is now, bank execs walk away from the disaster with millions in salaries and bonuses, free to find another bank they can ruin.  When bank failures result in hefty penalties to executives' personal fortunes and a ban on future employment in the industry, management will exercise greater care and work diligently to avert problems. Customers and investors finances are on the line, as are taxpayers.  It is only fair that bank execs should have skin in the game as well. 

  • 244
    Voted Support

    History has shown that when regulations are lessened or cancelled, businesses will take risks and push things to the edge without taking into account the consequences that could result if something were to go wrong. The regulations defined proper practices to safeguard not only the public, but the companies and businesses themselves.


    Furthermore, when proper procedures aren't followed, the executives responsible may be cashiered, but often end up with golden parachute type payments, instead of being held responsible and having to forfeit their "retirement" pay in recompense the the folks they injured.


    Someone who guides a business into a collapse of their own making has no right to profit from the collapse, and should be held responsible and face consequences.

  • 2,480
    Voted Support

    It is time to make sure that executives of big businesses, whether they are from banks, railroads, oil companies, whatever, are held responsible when the decisions that they make harm the general population. In the latest case of the banks, it is disgusting that bank executives received bonuses minutes before the banks failed. I am sick and tired of rich people taking advantage of the system and of the population at large to enrich themselves at the expense of others. 

  • 16.8k
    Voted Support

    Definitely. Reinstate all the restrictions protecting banks and depositors. There were valid reasons for their implementation. No reemployment in the banking industry by those causing the failure. Also any bonuses paid to the management and others of failed banks MUST be repaid. 

  • 3,677
    Voted Support

    Imprison them! The richer they made themselves, the more important it is to sentence them to life of hard labor with no possibility of parole and strip them and their families of all property and liquid funds.

  • 5,172
    Voted Support

    I wholeheartedly agree that all banks, regardless of size, should be under the same scrutiny. If you handle people's money, you should be subject to oversight.

    That said, in regard to fines or an industry ban, that would need to be done on a case-by-case basis. I agree the regulators should have the power to do so. But, for example, the current SVB issues, from what I've read, stem in part from their CEO actually being TOO transparent. Saying, "There's no need to panic, but we're looking for a big investment," is obviously going to cause people to panic. My point is, I'm not sure this guy should be banned from the financial sector for being overly honest.

  • 419
    Voted Support

    Banks were once held in check and then Pres. Reagan came along and decided government should get out of the banks' business.  So the banks decided to do what they wanted, most of which was lowering interest rates on savings and upping interest rates on loans.  With the added increase in profits apparantly going to the top, since the common person's savings were all but gone.  Banks need to once again be held in check.

  • 3,949
    Voted Support

    CAUSES ASKS: "Do you support imposing fines on or banning failed bank executives from working in the industry?"  ME: Indeed.  It's long past time for the heads of failed and/or abusive/harm-producing big business enterprises -- banks or not -- be held accountable.

  • 1,803
    Voted Support

    We see how well the unregulated banks have done in enriching themselves at the expense of their customers. Big business is unwilling to put anything before their profits so they need outside safeguards for their depositors.

  • 46.9k
    Voted Support

    In the 2008 Great Recession, too many banks and their executives were bailed out and nobody was held accountable except the everyday workers who lost their jobs. 

    This time, we need to act to hold banks and their executives accountable for their mismanagement and greed. I support fines, clawbacks, and any other methods for inhibiting the ability of bank executives to walk away easily if they mismanage consumers' funds.