Bank Lobbyist’s Freudian Slip: ‘We’re Not For Any Regulation’
Bank Lobbyist’s Freudian Slip: ‘We’re Not For Any Regulation’
Today, Scott Talbott, Senior Vice President for Government Affairs at The Financial Services Roundtable (one of the financial services industry’s main lobbying arms) appeared on C-Span to discuss the Obama administration’s proposal to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The Roundtable has already made its opposition to the new agency abundantly clear, while claiming there are other ways to enhance financial regulations. However, when asked what the Roundtable would support, Talbott slipped and said “we’re not for any regulation“:
HOST: So if not this process by the administration, the creation of the CFPA, how would the Financial Services Roundtable go about assessing and remedying this…
TALBOTT: Sure, sure. We’re not for any regulation. In fact, we have some proposals, but what we don’t want to do is separate out the regulation of the entity from the regulation of the product, which is what the CFPA would do.
Watch it:
Ever since the administration first suggested creating the CFPA, the financial services and business lobbies have been up in arms, claiming that the agency will drive up costs for consumers and limit which financial products they can use. As part of a wider multi-million dollar lobbying campaign, the industry plans to run “Harry and Louise” style ads saying that the CFPA will amount to government “telling you what you can and can’t buy.” Republicans have bought into this frame, claiming that the CFPA will “decide whether or not we can be trusted with a credit card.”
In reality, the CFPA would “take consumer regulatory responsibility of financial products from seven other agencies and centralize it in one office that is empowered to make rules, examine balance sheets, [and] issue subpoenas.” It’s designed to ensure that all financial products (from mortgages to credit cards) are transparent, with disclosure forms that are clear and fair, thus protecting consumers from exploitation and predatory lending.
The financial services industry claims that it has consumers’ best interests in mind, but as Talbott’s unwitting admission reveals, what it’s really interested in is a return to the free-wheeling practices that contributed to the economic meltdown.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Your basic “No sh*t Sherlock” kind of comment.
The Corporatists(both industry and gov’t) are operating under the assumption that the public has been dumbed down enough over the years to buy their crap about having the consumer’s interest in mind.
No, Pal, it’s all about the bottom line for you people. Always has been. You desperately need regulation on several fronts before you start up on on your next scam with the expectation that the gov’t will bail your asses out in the end if it goes to hell on you.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:53 pmCome on does anyone really expect the Fox to want someone guarding the hen house? Bank robbers don’t go around telling cops what they are about to do or where to find them after the job is done. These guys might have been born at night but it wasn’t last night. The only regulation they want is deregulation. When you can legally get away with bank robbery, why would you want to change?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pmI see that they are gearing up for the next big bubble crash.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pmTALBOTT: Sure, sure. We’re not for any regulation.
Duh! Of course, bank robbers don’t want guards at the bank!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pmOh, yes, regulation of the entity is different than regulation of the hiffersnoffer, which would, of course be a frengermorosity.
What BS.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pmI expect Obama will back down on his promise for bank regulation too.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pmThis Talbott guy doesn’t have a thing to worry about.
Separating regulation of entities from products is exactly what the financial industry needs. It would make things simpler, close loopholes and increase transparency. All while allowing companies to market current and new financial products without being hampered by silly 1930’s-era restrictions. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want it unless they’re currently engaging in massive fraud.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pmSo let me get this straight. We the taxpayers bailed out the financial industry with our money, without which many of these companies would have folded. The financial companies take the money from the taxpayers and give large chunks of it to DC politicians through lobbyists in hopes of insuring that safeguards meant to protect both the financial sector and the taxpayers are blocked. So without regulations the financial industry can once again near the brink of collapse and come back to DC asking for more money? I just want to make sure I’ve got this clear. Why then doesn’t the government cut out the middlemen (financial firms and lobbyists) and just give our tax dollars straight to the politicians so they can do OUR bidding for a change? I mean if our money is going to end up in some politicians coffers we’d at least like to pick who it goes to and lobby for what we want.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pmThey are all crooks. It’s time to nationalize the banks.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pmIS IT A RIGHT OR A PRIVLIDGE TO BE A CORPORATE SLAVE IN AMERICA?????
July 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pmHEADLINE IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL: SECOND WAVE OF FIANCIAL CRISIS COMING This time when the banks are on there knees, kick them in the head and put them out of our misery!!!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm“The financial services industry claims that it has consumers’ best interests in mind”
If that were true, then their own and their stockholders’ and investors’ best interests would not be served! And, we can’t have that, now, can we, unless they have some definition of consumers’ best interests that I’m not familiar with?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pmYeah, working without regulation worked out so good these past few years.
And don’t get me started on computerized trading as an opportunity for the wrong theory to really shoot things to h*!!
But of course, should they fail again, the American people should be so happy to bail them out. After all, the banking industry would bail me out if I had financial problems. Right ?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pmThe implied point misses the important point.
The Big Banksters, just like the Big Insurers and Big Employers, love, and create, gobs regulations that perpetuate their ability to screw money out of everyone.
That’s what keeps them wealthy – carte blanche from our own gov’t, paid for by us, to screw us in any and every way shape and form without reprisal or consequence.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pmWould you please translate this into English.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:30 pmTracy__5 Says:
You & Hugo Chaves must be best friends.
Better?
At least its in a somewhat coherent form now, but it is still idiotic projecting which is standard for you.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pmGood for her. Maxine waters is a good honest person. You see Tracy, here in the real world, the crooked corporatists have robbed everyone and ruined the economy. I don’t know how things work in alternate reality, but in real reality, doing the same thing that caused the problem doesn’t solve the problem.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pmTracy__5 Says:
——————————————————————————–
You & Hugo Chaves must be best friends
Do you understand why Bush and the American Gove hated Hugo Chaves so much???
Because Hugo TRHOUGH OUT EXON FROM VENEZVELA becuase Exon din’t want to pay royalties to the people!!!!
The picture is never clear if you let Government officials tell you the story.
CHAVES WAS DEMOCRATICLY ELECTED….IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR AMERICA????? FU**!!!! LETS STAY OUT OF OTHER NATIONS BUSINESS!!!!
July 8th, 2009 at 3:47 pmJesus, Tracy – casting the same aspersion over and over and over again, to no effect, is a really tedious way to participate. “Cootieburger” would be stronger stuff than “socialist”, as far as anyone sane’s concerned.
Even Victoria Jackson has moved on to the Hitler comparison – keep up with your team, or really shake things up and come up with a legitimate critique, wouldja?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pmIt wasn’t a slip. Our country would be so much better off without regulation. So what if a few slip through the cracks? The majority will benifit – and if they don’t? They were just too weak anyway and would not have strengthened us as a country. Survival of the fittest. It IS the way.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pmWho is Hugo Chaves or did I catch that name wrong?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pmIS IT A RIGHT OR A PRIVLIDGE TO BE AN AMERICAN CORPORATE SLAVE?????
Socializm…..Government and Corporations taking the peoples interest first…..
Facsism…..Government and Corporations taking corporate interests over the well being of the people.
Now tell me what you want?????? Were living through facism now….why not try the former for once.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pmTim Vaculick Says:
——————————————————————————–
It wasn’t a slip. Our country would be so much better off without regulation. So what if a few slip through the cracks? The majority will benifit – and if they don’t? They were just too weak anyway and would not have strengthened us as a country. Survival of the fittest. It IS the way.
Really….tell me that when the American dollar is worth .25 cents!!!!!! It’s coming my friend…people in the know.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:54 pmQ: What do Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein have in common?
A: They both threatened to sell oil for Euros.
Bush hung Saddam for this transgression. Chavez got off easy. Bush just had him kidnapped and held until he recanted and promised to never bring it up again.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pmNOLIESPLEASE I could care less about you and your kind. My family is very well off, so I don’t see a problem in my future. As for you? ha. Sorry ’bout yer luck (sucker)
July 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pmTim Vaculick Says:
It wasn’t a slip. Our country would be so much better off without regulation.
That’s like saying we could all drive to work more quickly if there were no traffic laws.
Your position = anarchy = fail.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
You Hugo Chaves must be best friends.
Fun fact: Bush has nationalized more corporations than Chavez has.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pmWe can be sure of one thing here. It is not the consumer that these lobbyists are trying to protect. It is those 21% interest rates and all of the other hidden charges. Always follow the money.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pmTim Vaculick Says:
My family is very well off…
As with all personal claims from wingnuts, you are lying. Your trailer is on blocks right now, isn’t it?
July 8th, 2009 at 4:07 pmOh but regulatory oversight is so tedious!
I’m sure we can trust them all to do the right thing.
(snark off)
July 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pmTim Vaculick Says:
——————————————————————————–
NOLIESPLEASE I could care less about you and your kind. My family is very well off, so I don’t see a problem in my future. As for you? ha. Sorry ’bout yer luck (sucker)
July 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I see a lonely old man sitting in a nursing home with absolutely no visitors. Oh maybe, family members will visit once a month to make sure he’s on his meds’
Can we give a group f–off to Timee the racist?
tony and lido
July 8th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
But, they are for regulation…of public health insurance.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pmMy family has more promissory notes [Fiat] backed by nothing than your family so I am better than you!!
/snark
July 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pmTracy__5 Says: And has thrown out or attempted to throw out term limits which make him a dictator just like Castro or any other thug who want’s to control the people like a king.
Why does T5 call the SCOTUS dictators?
July 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pmTARP is economically unsustainable,,,thanks Dubya!
July 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm#22 “Our country would be so much better off without regulation.”
You would be a twelve year old working in a factory 16 hrs a day seven days a week without regulation
July 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pmPfft, this private sector love affair is crap and is nothing more than exclusionary socialism [IE crony welfare]
Weird…we spread the debt but not the wealth. dooH niboR economics.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pmThe following three arguments presented by Tracy__5 are all based on false premises, each easily debunked:
.
Tracy__5 Says:
But you don’t go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and throw out an economic model that has proven to be far superior, in all respects from creating wealth to helping the people move up in pay by creating opportunity, to any socialist state planned system.
I hate to be the first to break this to you, but after years of deregulation there was a massive economic collapse last September. It was similar in nature to the Savings and Loan crash that happened in the late ’80s after that industry was deregulated, but at a much wider scale.
So when you’re talking about how successful everything is, it makes us kind of embarrassed for you that you’re the only person in the room not aware of how often and how hard it has failed.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
And has thrown out or attempted to throw out term limits which make him a dictator just like Castro or any other thug who want’s to control the people like a king.
Nope. Lots and lots of countries don’t have term limits, including all parliamentary democracies – England, Israel, Australia, etc. Are they dictatorships? Congress doesn’t have term limits. Although I think terms limits are a good idea, it’s still democracy without them.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
BS. Sensible regulations are what we need not anarchy, but the current administration does seem hell bent on controlling more and more of the private sector.
No it doesn’t. You haven’t even looked at the proposed legislation. You don’t even care what the reality is.
Obama’s been talking about this for over a year. The purpose is to streamline, simplify and modernize regulation of the financial industry. The primary change would be regulating financial products based on their type, rather than the classification of the institution offering them. That would give companies a lot more flexibility, though fewer loopholes.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:01 pm“But, they are for regulation…of public health insurance.”
No they [sic] are for running, i.e. controlling private health insurance.
No, they are using legislation, lobbying congress, to regulate [restrict] public health insurance so as to protect profits. They are afraid of public capitalism [competition]
July 8th, 2009 at 5:07 pmOh, I guess that never happened in alternate reality. It was just a real world event. You wouldn’t know anything about it.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:09 pmI think that the word “consumer” used to label this legislation says a lot about its authors. Banking is not a business it is a service, a privilege to handle the nation’s money. The profits they make are unlike those of manufacturing or industry where products enter the market place for distribution. To “consume” massive amounts of fraud and smoke and mirror fees and commissions suggests an economic dysfunction that requires regulation. Homelessness results from fraudulent banking practice on the lending end not the customer end.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pmWOW – what is going on with Tim Vaculick ?
Actually admitted that his motto is do away with regulation and have survival of the fittest. Who cares about those who are hurt.
This goes so far as to be a stereotype of the repubs.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:22 pmTimmy and I share the same gay republican politician. I came out of the closet to you all today – Timmy refuses to. But I will attest to the fact that he’s a fat white guy with a really small p-nus.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pmOh Tracy, you are lazy. If I do everything for you, you will never learn how to improve yourself. Do you how to use the Googles?
July 8th, 2009 at 5:52 pmI’m sorry, maybe you don’t have the Googles in alternate reality.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pmIn this time of “terrorist” attacks and shoddy China products, it would seem the repugs would love regulation.
Strange how repugs love regulation when it comes to governing citizens and hate regulations when it comes to big businesses.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pmTracy__5 Says:
“They are afraid of public capitalism [competition]”
And just who represents the “competition” against Medicare and Medicaid?
The consumers will benefit therefore making the unhealthy healthcare system compete for it’s patients, not the other way around.
Ain’t nobody making you have healthcare. Hunt for your care while you are sick or dying. OK? That plan seems right for ya.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pmMapleStreet Says:
WOW – what is going on with Tim Vaculick ?
Actually admitted that his motto is do away with regulation and have survival of the fittest. Who cares about those who are hurt.
This goes so far as to be a stereotype of the repubs.
And these asstalking repugs get all kind of breaks while they siphons off the blood and sweat from others.
timmeth I don’t want to live in your world.
July 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pmyour buds picked quite a racket profiting beyond your wildest dreams on sickness that is guaranteed to strike everyone. it will be fixed or the economy will collapse. current health insurance system is absolutely tyranny.
your shortsightedness is scary.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:57 pmTracy__5 Says:
Yep, that’s of course if you think that Chaves is not a dictator, but then again only a dictator would want to throw out term limits that were ALREADY in place.
The Venezuelan legislature repealed the term limits law. Chavez was re-elected. If he were a dictator, he would have repealed elections. That’s what a dictator is.
I’m still waiting to find out why we’re really supposed to hate Chavez so much.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
The system is not perfect. We do need regulations but the basic model works.
No, the basic model of health care is horrifically failing us and taking the entire economy with it.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
Cap and trade will not work.
Not relevant to health care (did you just lose your mind and start ranting at random?) but I agree. There should be a direct carbon tax, with no free cap or trading.
.
Tracy__5 Says:
I should have mentioned nationalized health insurance as to what I was referring to….a rather large chunk of the national economy.
As it is, all businesses are burdened with the employer-provided system. The overhead is spiraling out of their ability to control it, depressing small business growth and pitting large businesses against their own unions.
Why do you hate American business so much?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pmIt is really getting VERY interesting how so many people equate capitalism “with regulation” as pure socialism. I would think that only serial kilers would really want a world devoid of regulation? Or is “regulation” just another “situational ethic” in their mind, eh?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:25 pmThe police are regulators. Don’t want police? The military is a regulator force. Don’t want a military? It appears that Republicans are as much for regulation as anyone else, its just WHERE they are willing to put up with regulations that exposes their “vulnerability”. Must be cash poor (lots of cash, no peace). When the only way you can get love is to pay cash for it, things just suck and suck and never, ever really feel good, eh? Survival of the fittest? After fifty trillion years, who you gonna know that you really care about? Name them now.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:39 pmLife is the ultimate regulation. We all die. Without regulation, we all die much, much earlier. History proves that.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pmOK, you Republican regulation is bad crowd; explain to me why when we didn’t have bank regulations and protections in place have we had a major banking industry collapse every 15-20 mins since 1785. It wasn’t until the regulations separating commercial lending from investment banking and the protections from FDIC preventing runs on banks in the 1930s did we have a stable banking system. That would be regulations that require banks to keep capital in reserve, to insure deposits that provided calm and also provide a system to take over bad banks to make them solvent again.
But in 1999 the regulations separating various financial institutions passed and guess what in about 15-20 years we have had a major banking collapse. The only major banking hiccup during that time was the Savings and loan Crisis in the 80s and that was brought about by….? You guessed it, deregulation! Regulations provide stability in a sector that is critical to the US economy so it must remain stable.
Also American business has proven that if no one watches them they will do whatever they can to produce the highest profit. They will lie to us, cheat us, steal money from us, poison us, put our lives in danger, wreck the environment, destroy towns and even kill those that stand in their way. If you don’t believe that then you must not know your history.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:55 pmEveryone ought to read William Black’s book, “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One”. That essentially tells it all.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pmRon1946 Says:
The police are regulators. Don’t want police? The military is a regulator force. Don’t want a military?
Well put. What “economic conservatives” advocate is nothing more or less than pure anarchy in the economic sphere. As anarchy has never produced good results in any other sphere of human endeavor, there’s no reason whatsoever to believe that it’ll work in economics either.
All of their arguments to the contrary merely consist of the definition of moral evil dressed up to pass itself off as a political/economic philosophy.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:36 pmHe said bad things about Bush.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:29 amBTW, I only buy gas at Citgo. That way, I know my money is going to build schools and hospitals in Venezuela, rather than to fund terrorists.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:31 amThanks
July 10th, 2009 at 7:00 am